On Tue, 12 May 2009, Doug Henwood wrote:
> The difference during the "surge" was the purchase of the Sunni
> Awakening, no? That was much better organized than just paying people to
> join the army or police.
Absolutely. What was new wasn't the money, but rather how it was organized. And the situation the Sunni now found themselves in.
Friedman's point is also that the surge led the Sunnis to believe the US's commitment to protect them. Which they probably shouldn't have because in the long term we don't mean it. But it was crucial for the US that they should -- that belief at that time led us to this spot with Maliki getting stronger and stronger. Hence the surge had an indispensable strategic effect even though its effect was psychological. It's precisely because the point was to make deals and get out that that mattered.
I thought it was an interesting idea, different than the two usual views, that the surge was important for its military value (which didn't seem to hold much water, since it seems the change tactics was much more important); and that it was mainly all a PR stunt designed to put lipstick on a pig. And maybe has something to contribute.
FWIW, I found more interesting his take on the core of the Af-pak debate -- that although there is a debate, both sides of the administration are convinced there al-Qaeda there is not a boogeyman (as in Iraq), but the remnants of the group that originally attacked the US and might eventually organize to do so again after we leave.
Whether or not you think that's true in reality (and I don't, but I am a rank amateur in knowledge of this region), I think it might well be true that they think that way. It might explain their difficulties in coming up with a clear strategic plan (which is why this sometimes look Vietnamesque). And it might explain the plan that they recently seem to be embracing (namely re-incorporating pre-Taliban warlords, as if they were planning to go back to 1992 and try a do-over.
At any rate, like I said, it seemed like Friedman at his more interesting and original, whether or not he's right.
Michael