“Go Silent, Go Deep”

Paul E. Vallely

MG, US Army (ret)

“Go silent, go deep,” or “run silent, run deep,” is an old submariner term that commands all hands to dive so the enemy cannot detect and lock-on to your location – essentially, to dive below the levels of the seas.

Imagine the scenario: You’ve just made your attacks, ships are burning all around you, destroyers are charging – the time has come to make a major decision. You must either stay at periscope depth or head for deeper water; but staying at periscope depth is a gamble. You could be rammed. Your periscope could be sheared, making you blind. You could be bombed by aircraft and have shells flying at you from all directions. Most importantly you will be visible. This is not a decision to be made lightly. You are outgunned, outmaneuvered, and outnumbered near the surface. Why even consider it then? Because one thing you do have in your favor near the surface is initiative and control. Everyone will be coming after you, and in most cases will be running themselves over to get at you. However, going deep does not necessarily mean you will be safe. Once you’ve gone deep, you will be on the defensive. Yet, if you change your mind at the last second you will not have enough time to get deep enough or back to periscope depth.



Sounds like modern-day politics. In this case, the Democrats and Barack Obama’s followers have gone silent and deep on the issue of the success of the troop surge – they don’t want their supporters to think and admit that the surge is working and has worked throughout Iraq. Obama can’t seem to admit it. Yet, ahead of many, John McCain knew how to win in Iraq.



There should be a resolution introduced to recognize the success and progress of the surge. Republicans have tried to submit language in the Defense authorization bill to honor the selfless sacrifice of the men and women in our Armed Forces who have contributed to the success of our military operations in Iraq. However, Democrats in Congress have blocked any attempt by Republicans to insert any such language and continue to stay silent on the issue.



As the MNF-I commander in Iraq, the architect of the surge, and now the commanding general of Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus has served our country proudly and set our forces on a path to victory in Iraq. His service and leadership does not deserve the attacks of radical left-wing political groups such as MoveOn.org. This would have been a time for Democrats in Congress to redeem themselves by recognizing not only the service of one America’s greatest generals but of every sailor, soldier, marine and airman. But no, instead the command went through the ranks and file of the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign staff and the special interests, ran silent and ran deep.



Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) went after the Democrats. He introduced a resolution calling troop surge a “strategic success.” Obama and most liberals/Democrats opposed the Iraq surge and cannot admit to the successes so skillfully orchestrated by Gens. Petraeus and Raymond Odierno.

Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, is pushing hard for a vote, but it’s not a debate the Democrats really want to have. Most Senate Democrats – including Obama – opposed President George Bush’s decision in January 2007 to send an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the Republican presidential nominee, was a strong advocate of the new surge strategy, much has to do with McCain’s military experience and his judgment.



After the last of the troops in the surge left Iraq in August, McCain declared that the strategy had reduced violence in Iraq, saying, “The progress in Iraq has allowed us to continue on our policy of return on success.” McCain also suggested that additional troop reductions will occur … and they are possible and doable, beginning now.



The critics of the surge were wrong. Democrats, however, say multiple factors in addition to the surge have led to less violence in Iraq – such as the formation of Sunni awakening councils opposed to al-Qaida; Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's call to his militias to obey a ceasefire, and the rising competency, capabilities, and strength of the Iraqi security forces. The surge and re-focus of the forces to a counter-terrorism strategy made it possible for the Iraqi government and its security forces to strengthen their capabilities.



We must, however, be prepared for any October surprise in Iraq and other locations planned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces and their terrorist surrogates to influence the U.S. elections in November. The candidates must be prepared not to “run silent, run deep” when it comes to the “fog of war”. In war, it is the commander in chief’s duty to always be ready for the unexpected and always level with the American people.



Paul E. Vallely is the Chairman, Stand Up America USA Project and the co-author with LTG Tom McInerny “Endgame – Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”







Paul E. Vallely

Chairman - Stand Up America USA