A special adviser at the National Security Council who participated in the internal review prior to the 2007 Iraq surge decision hosted a presentation at the Wisconsin Veterans Museum defending the controversial decision of troop surges, both past and present, and the effects these have had on the civil-military relationship.
Peter Feaver, a distinguished academic in the study of civil-military relations, focused on the events leading up to the policy shift, the dynamics of the troop surge and the civil-military reaction in his presentation.
Feaver examined the situation in Iraq in the months prior to the surge and said the largest problem facing domestic support was communication about the military policies being enacted there. By the time a level of transparency had been established, sectarian violence had escalated to a point that required additional troops.
He said that only after consultation with his generals did President George W. Bush decide to deploy additional troops.
“Initially, after the surge, things got steadily worse. But over the summer, as all the forces arrived, we saw a slow change. As violence over the surge died out, the total level of deaths began to decrease steadily as well,” Feaver said.
Feaver also compared the current military and political situations in Afghanistan to Iraq and noted that much could be learned from the past.
“The strategy — as I understand it — in Afghanistan is the same strategy that was tried in Iraq, which was a population-centered coin operation with U.S. forces in the lead initially buying time to build a bigger Afghani force,” Feaver said.
Members of the audience consisted of a wide range of individuals and opinions, both for and against the body of the presentation
“I believe Feaver gave a superficially plausible story of what happened. A number of points were wrong and showed how little we’ve learned from the monstrous failures of the administration he was part of,” Rahul Mahajaan, a Madison resident and audience member, said. “I am still surprised they have talks like this when the lessons we’ve learned should be so clear.”
University of Wisconsin graduate student Steve Oreck, on the other hand, appreciated Feaver’s perspective, saying it was nice to see what happened behind the policy decision.
The talk was followed by a period of questions, many of which emphasized the proposed 40,000 troop surge in Afghanistan by President Barack Obama.
“The one thing I’m sure of is that President Obama and his team are going through the same kind of mental exercises we went through in the Iraq strategy review. Looking over principles of the strategy, asking tough questions and then having to make a decision under conditions of uncertainty,” Feaver said.
Jon Pevehouse, a UW professor and expert on U.S. foreign policy, agreed that a troop surge could prove successful but stressed the use of troops in cities.
He suggested the surge in troops should accompany a shift in strategy, one that emphasized counter-insurgency measures in highly populated areas.
“Right now, it seems that the forces are spread too thin and that all we are doing is chasing the Taliban further away instead of solving the issue in the first place,” Pevehouse said.
