It's the strategy, not the surge

From William Kristol.

But of course these senators won't acknowledge they're influenced by the electoral cycle. Consider John Warner. Is he worried about 2008? No. It's memories of Vietnam that suddenly haunt him. As the Washington Post reported on its front page recently:
"I regret that I was not more outspoken" during the Vietnam War, the former Navy secretary said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "The Army generals would come in, 'Just send in another five or ten thousand.' You know, month after month. Another ten or fifteen thousand. They thought they could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn't work."

These gross mis-characterizations of history will doom us, because it shows the public did not learn history's lessons.

We won the war in Vietnam, before the anti-war movement lost it, by changing commanders and strategy. Abrams replaced Westmoreland just like Petraeus is replacing Casey. Abrams brought a new focus on counter-insurgency, just like Petraeus. After 4 years of deadly blunders that have threatened American foreign policy all over the world, Bush finally made a good decision to win the war, learning from history.

In Vietnam, the US achieved its goal of standing up the Vietnamese military so it could defend itself against North Vietnam. Thanks to Abrams strategy and American troops implementation, the Vietnamese defeated North Vietnamese troops in combat, and were able to fight the war themselves as long as the US provided supplies. Petraeus now has that exact same goal in Iraq, and he has the best military in the world working for him.

It's not the surge, it's the change in strategy and the leader. It's political cowardice to stick a finger in the wind and join the stiff breeze calling for a pullout. It takes political courage and leadership to continue fighting, but with history, a new strategy, General Petraeus, and American troops on the side of victory, we have a great chance to win in Iraq.