Democrats fought the surge and the surge won

Joan Walsh:

Back when I was regularly writing about Iraq and talking about it on television, I read everything the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks wrote about the war. From his devastating book "Fiasco" to his daily reporting from Baghdad and the Pentagon, Ricks was the nation's top expert on the folly of the U.S. mission in Iraq, from inept prewar planning to postwar execution to a botched occupation that led the U.S. to the brink of defeat without its leadership having a clue how bad things really were.

Imagine my surprise, and also perhaps Ricks', to find his new book, "The Gamble: General Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq 2006-2008," telling an admiring, often inspiring story of the way the American military came back from humiliation thanks to the so-called surge, which so many Democrats, myself included, passionately opposed. If you enjoyed "Fiasco," thrilled to have your prejudices about the clueless Bush administration confirmed, it's your responsibility to read "The Gamble" to have some prejudices challenged. In "Fiasco" decisions are made by knaves and buffoons like Donald Rumsfeld, Iraq reconstruction czar L. Paul Bremer and Iraq's first commander, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez; in "The Gamble," the action is dominated by men Ricks respects, like retired Gen. Jack Keane, along with David Petraeus and his deputy, Gen. Raymond Odierno.

Ricks shows how the three military leaders ran their own insurgent campaign to get control of the disastrous war as it spiraled out of control in 2006. According to Ricks, liberals weren't the only ones appalled by Abu Ghraib, the massacres at Haditha and Mahmoudiya, and abusive interrogation practices all over Iraq. War critics within the military were likewise galvanized by those abuses, Ricks says, at least partly because they saw firsthand the ways American cruelty widened the anti-American insurgency. In a near-complete strategic turnaround, surge adherents argued that the way to victory was not killing as many Iraqis as possible but protecting them, building alliances by respecting Iraqi culture and religion.

If you were a fan of MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad -- I was not -- you might have a hard time with Ricks' high praise for Petraeus' counterinsurgency planning and execution. He doesn't idealize Petraeus, he shows us his ambition and quotes skeptics and critics, but it's hard not to come away admiring what the controversial general accomplished in just two years. I had a harder time with the way Ricks lionized Gen. Jack Keane and his friends at American Enterprise Institute, the neocon think tank partly responsible for the disastrous Iraq war. I remember making fun of AEI's color-coded, Google-mapped surge sales brochure back in 2006, as well as its "neighborhood watch" approach to pacifying Iraq. It was tough for me to believe that one set of plans hatched at AEI destroyed Iraq, while another might begin to heal it.

The operative word, of course, is "begin." In fact, as you read about Petraeus and Odierno's successes, you see that the surge worked a lot like a neighborhood watch, backed by awesome weaponry. Still, it's hard not to admire the way soldiers (including Odierno himself) who once emphasized getting Iraqis to fear them now worked to gain their trust and even friendship, teaching themselves Arabic and befriending Iraqi families. It's also hard not to respect the way Petraeus and his team, unlike their predecessors, sought out and employed people who often disagreed with them. War critics who can't warm up to Petraeus or Keane will enjoy Odierno advisor Emma Sky, a British anthropologist and war opponent who nonetheless comes to feel respect and affection for Odierno and his soldiers, while remaining skeptical of the overall U.S. mission in Iraq; or Petraeus' translator Sadi Othman, a pacifist of Palestinian descent who is crucial in helping Petraeus reach out to and gain the trust of angry Iraqis.

...

I have been critical of Ricks' Fiasco for several reasons. Bing West's The Strongest Tribe does a much better job of explaining events during the same time period as Fiasco. The West book catches the ebb and flow of combat as each side feels out the other and responds without assuming that one side or the other is run by fools. If you read Peter Mansoor's Baghdad at Sunrise covering the early part of the war, he was clearly no fool.

What makes Ricks new book of interest is that he recognizes a winning strategy and wants to write about that too. Fiasco was more of a blunt political tool for attacking the Bush administration, while ignoring some of those really responsible for the failing strategy like Gen. Casey and Ben. Abizaid who were big on the small footprint, hand off to the Iraqis before they were ready strategy.

In the excerpts I have read of his new book, he seems to recognize that Gen. Odinero is something other than the cartoon figure he described in Fiasco. I look forward to heading The Gamble, but Bing West has so far written the best book about the turn around in Iraq.

For the Democrats who relied on Fiasco to make their case against the war, it appears to be a gamble that did not pay off although they have yet to pay a political price for being so disastrously wrong about the surge.