Barack Obama 'risks Suez-like disaster' in Afghanistan, says key adviser

[Pooky 3,781]

The surge appeared to work in Iraq, but it wasn't because of higher troop levels, instead we started giving jobs to the guys who would be attracted to fighting for as insurgents. We brought down the violence there simply because we could pay better.

More to it than that the surge helped assert that the U.S. wasn't pulling out and able to cover more terrority. It wasn't a coincidence. The foreign fighters for Al Qaeda were shooting up neighborhoods and generally earning the wrath of local tribal chiefs. In addition, the Sunnis realized that once the U.S. left, they'd have under the thumb of a Shiite dominated government and left without the oil-producing regions.

The violence declined not because we could pay better and give the locals jobs, but because the commanders on the ground started working with the local tribal leaders, rather than in spite of them, and turned the countryside into a hostile environment for the insurgents. If anything, the troop surge had an impact out of proportion to the numbers, simply because it enabled the commander on the ground to persuade the local population that US military back-up would be available in sufficient numbers for them to fight the insurgents.