It's the Plan, Stupid

Here's more on the idea I mentioned yesterday that the number of troops is less important than what you do with them. From Austin Bay:

...a "sudden" increase in troop strength alone is of minimal value.
Reinforcements and withdrawals have always been an option.
What Petraeus has
changed is the "level of presence" in violent areas. The relentless targeting of
Shia and Sunni extremist organizations is a far more important feature of what
Iraqis are calling "the new security plan" than simply sending more U.S. troops
into the streets.

As I referred to in the previous post, this was Westmoreland's big mistake in fighting the war in Vietnam. By constantly asking for an increase in troop strength, he gave the impression that this alone would defeat the insurgents. In contrast, President Bush, likely the best general we have, is constantly pointing out the need to "stay the course" and not give up on the Iraqi's. His principle strategy is "as the Iraqi's stand up, we will stand down". By teaching the populace to fend for themselves, he gives them a stake in their own salvation. It is their war, not Bush's. This is totally against the nanny state mentality of the Left, who thinks Big Brother America must shoulder the entire burden, then when they fail, just declare victory and pullout.

So, is the surge of any value? Of course, for the increasingly impatient US public it is a quick salve for our worn nerves. But the Plan is the thing.