I published a fairly bleak commentary late last night entitled “The Future of the War: It Needs to be Decided Immediately,” and another fairly bleak picture of Ramadi a day or two ago, entitled “Ramadi, Iraq: A Mess.”  The one on the future of the war is so bleak, in fact, that I had been pondering whether I should have published it.  After all, we get enough bad news and spinned commentaries as it is.  Not any more.  Just at my lowest (deciding whether to remove the post — I know, a no-no in the web log world), this comes to my attention from the testimony of the brass before the Senate:

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that “Iraq could move toward civil war” if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped. “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it,” Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the top priority in the Iraq war is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.[ … ]

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Abizaid’s observation when he told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Abizaid’s observation when he told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.”Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other,” Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. “The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.” 

However bleak my post was, it is nice to be confirmed by the generals.  I don’t disagree with the thrust of what I read here, but permit me one nuanced modification.  The focus should indeed be on the Iraqis, but as I said in my post noted above, the situation seems to me to be spiraling out of control very quickly.  More is needed in the way of stabilization by the U.S. troops.  We have taken defensive positions in Ramadi, and the death toll in Baghdad is higher than in Lebanon and Israel combined.  The sectarian violence must be stopped in Baghdad, and the fight must be taken to the Sunni insurgents in Ramadi.

What is needed is a large, coordinated offensive by both U.S. and Iraqi troops.  It must be fast, furious and unrelenting.  The results will be similar to what they were after the killing of al Zarqawi and the capture of the intelligence on Al Qaida in Iraq.  The terrorists were running for cover.  When they are running for their lives, they don’t have the time or wherewithal to go on the offense.

The basic problem here as I see it is that while we have been on the offense for much of the time over the last several years, leading to gains and stabilization in all areas (whether power grid reliability, decrease in the death toll, utilities reliability, political advances), we are now on the defensive.

Bad move.  Let’s take counsel from General George Patton.

“In war the only sure defense is offense, and the efficiency of the offense depends on the warlike souls of those conducting it.”

We have the best, most well-trained and well-equipped fighting force in the history of the world.  Let’s quit hand-wringing over “rules of engagement” and unleash them.  In the end, this strategy will not only be victorious, it will save U.S. lives.  Time is of the essence.

Faster … please?