surge: my journey with general david petraeus and the remaking of the iraq war

in surge, peter r. mansoor offers a unique vantage point on the iraq war, informed by his experience at every level of command. he witnessed the conflict on a strategic level with the joint chiefs of staff, on an operational level as a member of general david petraeus's team, and on a tactical level as a brigade commander. as he wrote the book, he benefited from his perspective as an officer in the field, an aide to the commanding general of the coalition forces, and a military historian. we, the readers, get to tag along for a front-row seat to this foray.

the book isn’t perfect, but it provides a fascinating periscope into the behind-the-scenes reality of a conflict that dominated the news i watched daily as a kid. it wasn't until reading this book that i fully grasped the three-dimensional picture of the iraqi civil war. the images mansoor paints are rich and detailed; with what i imagine was the limited information he was permitted to disclose, he still manages to make you almost taste the dust of the iraqi desert.

the book excels at detailing the tactical shift at the heart of the surge: the move from a simple search-and-destroy mindset to a complex population-centric counterinsurgency (coin) doctrine, where winning the trust of iraqi civilians became the main objective. beyond the kinetic fight, surge offers a rare window into warfare as a stack of battles, where the most decisive ones are waged in conference rooms with weapons like emails and video conference calls.

however, the book has its flaws. stylistically, it suffers from repetition. at some point, i had to check if i wasn't mistakenly rereading the same pages, which may be due to the author being unable to share everything he witnessed. more importantly, the book feels self-congratulatory and biased. this is perhaps understandable, as this isn't just a history; it's a memoir and a defense of a policy that was fiercely debated. mansoor is not just an observer but an advocate, arguing for the surge's place in history.

this positionality explains the stark 'good guys vs. bad guys' narrative that often resembles an '80s or '90s movie. there’s a clear divide between the "good guys" (the mnf-i under petraeus and the republicans) doing everything right, and the "bad guys" (the mnf-i under petraeus's predecessor, the democrats, the rest of the u.s. military, and, of course, the insurgents).

to his credit, mansoor does acknowledge that the new strategy was not the sole reason for success. he gives due credit to the anbar awakening, where sunni tribes turned against al-qaeda, and to similar shiite movements, arguing that the surge capitalized on a window of opportunity created by iraqis themselves.

yet, this raises the most difficult question: what is the surge's long-term legacy? while the book convincingly argues it was a tactical success that dramatically reduced violence, the subsequent withdrawal of u.s. forces and the eventual rise of isis in the very areas 'pacified' by the surge cast a long shadow over its claims of strategic victory.

in the end, surge is a detailed and valuable insider account, but its bias as a primary source memoir can't be ignored. it offers a compelling look at a pivotal moment in modern warfare, while leaving the reader to grapple with the unsettling questions of its ultimate impact.

END OF FILE