Credit Where it is Due: H.R. McMaster, the Author of the "Surge" Strategy

John McCain speaks of his ability to "win wars" using the "surge" as his example. This is surprising, as this was the strategy that was first implemented in 2005 by U.S. Army Colonel H.R. McMaster, in what he called "Clear, Hold and Build;" a strategy that may have reduced the insurgency had it been supported at the time.

What makes the authorship of this strategy so important, aside from the fact that Colonel McMaster deserves credit where it is due, is the dust-up that resulted after the strategy was proposed to the Pentagon and then the White House in 2005 as a way to bring about conditions for a political solution in Iraq prior to the worst of the insurgency taking hold:

The successful strategy created by a Col. H.R. McMaster (Clear, Hold and Build), where his troops went into a city, lived among the population in small units, built trust and protected the population while they fought the insurgents.

Requests to implement his strategy that went up the ranks were stopped at the highest levels. The reasons given: it would take more troops and put them in more danger. Thomas Rick's reaction: you can't fight a war as a tourist." It was not implemented by the Pentagon.

The State Department representative in Iraq heard about "Clear, Hold and Build" and flew back to tell Condoleeza Rice. Rice then went before Congress and, in what turned out to be a direct challenge to Rumsfeld, formally recommended the Clear, Hold and Build strategy during a hearing that was broadcast live.

Rumsfeld quickly held a press conference where he said (paraphrase): we didn't have the troops to implement it and it wasn't our responsibility to protect the Iraqis.

The insurgency exploded.

There were generals who did not give up on the idea of "Clear, Hold and Build." They pointed to Col. McMasters' success as the only feasible strategy. When General Jack Keane went to see President George Bush about it in 2006, he came away thinking he had finally convinced him. Shortly thereafter, according to Thomas Ricks on the FRONTLINE episode, ENDGAME, Dick Cheney then talked George W. Bush out of supplying the necessary troops for success.

It was only after the new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, and General David Petraeus came aboard that the "Clear, Hold and Build" strategy was given serious consideration and it was Petraeus, a long-time proponent of the strategy, who implemented it beginning July 4, 2007.

What is missing from the above account is any support for John McCain's implication of authorship, as presented by his constant self-identification with the "surge." While he did, early on and during the early part of the Republican primary season, support the "surge" strategy, it should be noted that it was two years after Colonel McMaster had proven its effectiveness in Tal Afar, Iraq, before it was put through, long after the time when the wider implementation of McMaster's strategy could have reduced the level of insurgency and bettered the political outcome in Iraq. Which would have, in turn, freed troops for the neglected war in Afghanistan that has now "surged" to the forefront.

Which is exactly the argument Senator Barack Obama made when he voted against the surge; in hindsight, perhaps not a vote that has served him well against political spin, but still a valid consideration given the escalation in Afghanistan and the danger that the insurgent Taliban and the actual al Qaeda that attacked on 9/11 represents. An argument that seems to be falling on deaf ears due to the Republican Senator's rhetoric that implies his authorship of the surge without mention of Colonel McMaster, without mention of Senator McCain's own support for the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration's long neglect of the policy or the impact that neglect has had on the lives lost in Iraq and on the dangerous campaign in Afghanistan.

Credit where it is due, Senator McCain. In the case of "Clear, Hold and Build," that credit belongs to H.R. McMaster for his strategy; for the many lives that have been lost in the meantime and for the overstretched troops in Afghanistan fighting the resurgent Taliban while the reinforcements they needed were Clear, Holding and Building Iraq.

One more consideration: The "Surge" itself is not the only reason there has been a reduction in violence in Iraq. Consideration must be given the large transfer of funds to the Sunni Tribal Leaders who are now fighting against Al Qaeda instead of with them and to the Iraqi and Kurdish troops that are performing the "Hold" part of the "Clear, Hold and Build" strategy.

Afghanistan is a different model.

In Iraq, the Sunni tribesmen became genuinely horrified at the brutal excesses of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaeda that is hiding in near plain sight the wilds of Waziristan border region are, in some cases, popular, in many cases, indigenous, and in most cases, heavily tied into narco-trafficking from the poppy fields; the only income for the poorest of Afghanistan and for warlords not the least interested in relinquishing power.

Which leads to the most surprising of John McCain's claims: that Afghanistan is just like Iraq; that its tribes can be subdued with the "Clear, Hold and Build" strategy. While that may be partially true, it is, at best, a simplistic analysis. The Afghani tribes are not universally enraged at their Taliban brethren in quite the same way as the Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders were at al Qaeda in Iraq and it is unknown whether the large payoffs that secured those Iraqi tribal leaders will make the slightest dent in the narco-profits the Afghani groups now enjoy.

Col. McMaster's strategy deserves credit for its effectiveness. The troops that implemented it deserve the credit for their bravery. General Jack Keane deserves credit for his long support of the strategy, David Petraeus and Bob Gates for putting it through and John McCain, I guess one could concede, for rhetoric about it while nothing was being done and then for taking credit for supporting it when it was unpopular during the Republican primary campaign and when it became the single focus of success -- without mention of those payoffs to the Sunni Tribal Leaders, the fact that there is still no effective oil law implemented in Iraq (the political solution) or the impact on the increasingly overstretched troops in Afghanistan that could have used a "surge" quite some time ago.

Credit where it is due.

More on this topic at THE ENVIRONMENTALIST

Comments

[Edmonsky]

GlaB
It is not completely true that surge alone led to the reduction of violence in Iraq. It is a confluence of many factors. Surge is one of them but others are standalone and as a product of happenstance.

Foreign fighters that entered Iraq to fight US troops were there to support Sunnis insurgents. Instead of supporting Sunnis insurgents alone, they wanted to establish theocracy and started working in cross-purpose with their host, the Sunnis and thereby threatening to overthrow the power-structure of tribal leaders. Another factor was the miscalculation of the foreign fighters to realize that the majority of Sunnis are secularists. The timeline when Sunni leaders decided to form partnership with US forces to fight their foreign fighters predates surge operation. This is the single most important reason why violence was reduced in Iraq rather than the introduction of surge. The influence of surge on the reduction of violence was in erecting barriers between the Shiites and Sunnis in order to stop ethnic cleansing. US were not only paying Sunni leaders but were also helping in arming Sunni insurgent factions as counterweigh to Shiites. Shiites insurgents were being financed by entities in Iran and their government. Since it became clear to the Iranians that US public opinion was not in favor of permanent US occupation in Iraq, they had to put pressure on Shiite insurgents to hunker down since the power structure is in favor of Shiite majority.

[Edmonsky]

GlaB
Unfortunately, the new regime in Iraq is a close puppet to Iranian government. Hence, the Iranian influence instead of being contained in the region is strengthened and amplified. The reason being that the architects of the invasion of Iraq were not thinking in historical terms in factoring pre-existing alliances dating back centuries. It is clear that the initial illusion of establishing permanent US Military Base in Iraq is a still-born and there is no way Iran through the regime in Iraq would ever accept such national security arrangement. The reason for surge was not only to help reduce violence but to create the opportunity for political reconciliation that will help strengthen the government in power and the payoff will be the military pact leading to permanent US military base in Iraq. If the US goal is not met, then it stands to reason that surge has not worked but instead it has unintended consequences of increasing Iranian power in the Middle-East it set out to curb.

[Edmonsky]

GlaB
It is better for you to understand why US invaded Iraq and what they had in mind to accomplish as success.
US wanted to overthrow Saddam and install a democratic regime that will be sympathetic to American values and becomes the epicenter for spreading democracy in the Middle-East. The architects of the plan thought that first, there would be no insurgency since the populace would be happy to be liberated; that Iraq is a country with huge deposit of oil, hence, the cost of war and reconstruction would be self-financed. Based on the foregoing, US influence on the newly established government would bring about lower cost of oil; provide opportunities for US exports and contracts; above all, eliminate major threat to security of Israel. For all these to happen require that US would have a permanent military base for projecting its power as well as emasculating Iranian influence in the region. Senator John McCain was a core proponent of this policy. The question becomes what among these goals are realized or have the potential of being realized?

[kellygrrrl]

I'm sure the called McMaster every name in the book when they heard his idea
... right before they stole the idea

same thing they do to 0bama every time

[Budh]

So, the McCain surge succeeded? because, McCain said so. Bush also said "Mission Accomplished" remember. If you go ahead and wipe out half the population you may certainly succeed. That is the new McCain doctrine.

[DaOne]

I would like someone to ask McSame to outline specifically where, when and how he created the surge plan? Show us the documents and all the planning at various stages that were involved old man.

[GLaB]

He didn't create it - nor does he say he did.

He DID midwife it, though.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=154990


""An event at AEI yesteday brought together the intellectual progenitors of escalation: military historian Fred Kagan, retired General Jack Keane and Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. The focus was not on how to clean up the neocons mess, but on how to deepen it.
"The surge must be substantial and it must be sustained," McCain told a packed room. That means keeping an additional 20,000 to 35,000 troops in Iraq for 18 to 24 months. Under such a plan, 160,000 plus troops could be deployed well past 2008 at an untold cost.

Over 300 protestors convened by MoveOn.org gathered outside AEI to protest such a scenario. "John McCain, John McCain, escalation is insane!" they chanted. Around the same time, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid sent a letter to President Bush expressing their opposition to any troop increase."""

[GLaB]

The ACTUAL surge plan:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25396/pub_detail.asp

[eden4barack08]

Thank you so much, for writing about this Janet.

[Bobrobert]

Wow.

Surge = more dead.

No stability without US presence.

Surge = more dead.

Iraq people want us to leave now.

Surge = more dead.

We still are not bringing all the troops home.

Surge = more dead.

What part of the surge worked - less violence - ??????

Surge = more dead.

Less violence = more dead anyway.

Surge = more dead.

Now way out without being called a loser.

Surge = more dead

Surge = losers.

Vietnam taught us how to be losers - Iraq shows just how well we learned the lesson of Vietnam!!!

[StephenJK]

Run up to Iraq: Wrong

War in Iraq: Wrong

Post deployment strategy: Right

My point is that we are there and there is nothing anyone can do to go back to the future on this. So let's try and succeed there. It's of paramount importance. I'm not a liberal who wishes to see us fail in Iraq. I don't demonize the troops. I, like any good person, wish to see us succeed there in Iraq. The surge worked and now we see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. Less violence, more trust (Iraqi's trust in our troops) and a definition of success is emerging. I am VERY happy to see this. Not for Bush regime's sake. For the US's sake. Couple Iraq success with our unprecedented HIV/AIDS/Malaria/TB bill that just went through and we're well on our way to once again becoming a tolerable big brother in the world.

Now just get the fleabag oil robber barons out of the White house, put fair taxation on the Oil monsters and the richest earners and develop a successful strategy in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Then we'll be good to move forward with the most important issues: domestic ones.

[GLaB]

P.S. Thank you so much for bothering to come by and debate this. It's really terrific to get a rare chance to interact with any of the bloggers, here.

[GLaB]

The "McCain Doctrine"
by kos
Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 10:14:20 AM PDT
This is very good.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, targeting a potential Republican rival in 2008, dubbed plans for a short-term U.S. troop increase in Iraq "the McCain doctrine," in an interview aired on Sunday. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, considered likely to be a Republican candidate for president, has been "the most prominent spokesperson for this for some time," Edwards said in an early salvo of the 2008 campaign.

Bush, indecisive on how to proceed, is now taking his cues from McCain. The baton is being passed to the heir apparent.

This is fast becoming McCain's war.

::

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/2/13948/14017

[Janet Ritz - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh. Spamming comments from Kos, as if I'd have anything to do with his posts is tres Republican of you.

For the record, I don't agree with Kos on much and I doubt he'd agree with me. I'm a strong supporter of the Kurds and I wanted Clear, Hold and Build put in after Tal Afar.

As for Senator Obama, I support him for many reasons, one of which is his statement that we will be "as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." Another has been his consistent warnings about Afghanistan and Pakistan -- all of which have come true.

And then there's that competency thing.

The incompetency of the Bush Administration is represented by the people who are part of McCain's campaign. They will end up running the country (yet again) if he is elected. Their delay in implementing the surge put Afghanistan at risk and allowed the Iraqi insurgency to explode. I don't blame McCain for that. It was Rumsfeld and Cheney and George W. Bush who didn't have what it took to stand up to Cheney.

If you elect McCain, you will get the same incompetents in the West Wing. That's not a Republican or Democratic issue; that's a survival issue. Afghanistan is in trouble. Pakistan is at risk. Iraq was the wrong war. McCain supported it. Did he support the surge? Yes. Did he make sure it was implemented in time. No.

[GLaB]

I am a 50 year old, life-long Liberal Democrat. I first got involved with politics working as a volunteer phone-canvassing for Gary Hart's first Senate campaign and Pat Schroeder's House campaign (back in my teens).

You are WRONG once again. (Sorry for the caps in this and other posts, but it's the only form of emphasis available here).

As a Democrat, I never closeted away my brain; I can still think, and I am more concerned with the TRUTH than Obama fans tender feelings.

I also am a bit of a student of military history, though not to the degree of several of my friends, but I have been familiar with McMaster for years.

I quoted Kos along with other Democrats to demonstrate that the left has been calling the Surge "the McCain Doctrine" from its very beginning - only this week has there been ANY attempt to sever him from credit/blame. Coincidentally, just before Barack Obama heads off to Iraq where he will be told by the Generals that his (Obama's) dire predictions about the Surge were simply wrong and that McCain's optimism about it was pretty much on target; even MORE coincidentally, the very same week that Obama took all his negative speaches/writings about the Surge off his website.

[GLaB]

If Democrats are going to BLAME McCain for the Surge when they TO A MAN agree it's going to fail, simple honesty requires that McCain must be CREDITED for the Surge when it succeeded.

[LiberTLover]

Where was McCain when generals were getting fired for saying how many actual trrops would be needed to be successful and who said that Iraq wasn't a good idea? He was head cheerleader for Bush, and wasn't interested in listening to the generals or Admiral Fallon, Petraeus' boss, who disagreed with BushCo and didn't think much of Petraeus either.
And which 'surge' actually worked? The escalation of US troops, or the 'surge' of $30 million a month to the 100,000 mostly former terrorist/insurgent Iraqis who used to kill US troops but are paid to fight next to them now, as long as the dollars keep flowing, that is. Must be hard for the troops, fighting alongside people who were responsible for killing and maiming their friends and comrades, but what does that matter? I laugh everytime I hear how tough the Repubs are, how they "don't negotiate with terrorists", because they do, and it is usually over how much to pay them to promote the illusion that the Repubs are not weak. They paid terrorists to continue holding hostages after Carter had negotiated their release, to win an election. Now they pay former terrorists in Iraq, men who killed US troops, not to fight against them. And they expect the people to clap like performing seals as they say that violence is down, but forget to mention the price in $$$ and mental stress to the troops now working with the killers of their comrades. Disgraceful.

[CEPHALUS]

Apparently you did not get the memo:the surge was defeated by a shift in strategy by al qaeda,
and if you don't believe check out what is happening in afghanistan.
Mcbush is too slow to keep up with this change in strategy by the enemy.
Going around shouting victory is a fallacy that we can't afford at this time, when we are at the enemies mercy in afghanistan.

[GLaB]

John Edwards on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fw6s79b8Mw

... rejecting th "MCCAIN DOCTRINE."

[GLaB]

"I actually, myself, believe that this idea of surging troops, escalating the war " what Senator McCain has been talking about " what I would call now the McCain doctrine � (is) dead wrong."

- John Edwards, on ABC's THIS WEEK, January 2007.

Let's repeat that for the mentally-challenged 90% of HuffingtonPost commenters and bloggers.

"I actually, myself, believe that THIS IDEA OF SURGING TROOPS, escalating the war " what Senator McCain has been talking about " WHAT I WOULD CALL NOW THE MCCAIN DOCTRINE� (is) dead wrong."

[GLaB]

"Credit where it is due." - Janet Ritz, 07/18/2008

[Janet Ritz - Huffpost Blogger]

I know what you're saying. But you miss the point. McCain was not the author of the Clear, Hold and Build strategy. H.R. McMaster was. McCain does not mention McMaster in his latest ad. Instead, he IMPLIES that he, McCain, is singularly responsible for the surge.

It is disingenuous, at best, and disrespectful to Colonel McMaster, his troops, to all the U.S. and Iraqi troops who have risked so much, to General Keane and, of course, to Petraeus and Gates who made it a condition of coming on board.

John McCain's rhetoric notwithstanding, you are equally as disrespected as McCain for not acknowledging the actual people responsible for the surge -- McMaster, Keane, Petraeus, Gates -- without whom it would not have happened.

What McCain has done is tantamount to rhetorical plagiarism.

You can give him all the credit you want and pat yourself on your right wing for your gotcha posts. It doesn't change the fact that he's not acknowledging those who actually did the work.

As for me, I take no credit. I give it all to Colonel McMaster and those who actually put Clear, Hold and Build through.

[GLaB]

McMaster wasn't the author, either. He credits many others before and alongside him. You should actually read him!

EXAMPLE - AN INTERVIEW WITH COL.MCMASTER

WHO IS COL. BILL HIX?

Col. Bill Hix was an adviser to Gen. Casey and has really helped develop the conceptual foundation for a theater strategy in Iraq. He traveled widely across the country in late 2005 to conduct a study on counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and to identify best practices and recommend the implementation of those practices across the country. He's also one of the officers who help found the counterinsurgency academy [COIN Academy] at Taji, which was meant to develop a common understanding of counterinsurgency operations across the coalition as we come into the theater of operations.

DID YOU ATTEND?

We attended. Our leadership attended the counterinsurgency academy as guest instructors at the end of our tour in Iraq. ... I think we participated in a session in January 2006.

WHY WOULD SOMEONE SAY THAT COL. HIX WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT COLONEL IN IRAQ AT THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

Col. Bill Hix was fulfilling what is a very important role, which is to identify best practices across the force and disseminate those. There's a long tradition in various militaries of small teams of officers and non-commissioned officers [NCOs] traveling around an army and trying to effect institutional or doctrinal change. A great example is German doctrinal change in World War I; ...


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/interviews/mcmaster.html