Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

[capi888]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2132496.ece


What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

Read entire article...

[silverojo]

1. If a Dem becomes president in January of 2009

I want Wes Clark to be nominated for Secretary of Defense. Actually, I wouldn't mind him being President, either. So many good Dems in the running...how can we pick just one?!?

[asthmaticeog]

2. Will he have been a civilian for ten years by then?

I thought a SecDef can't have been active duty military for that amount of time before accepting that cabinet position.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. No, he retired from the Army in 2000.

But he'd be an excellent Secretary of State, if he isn't elected President.

[asthmaticeog]

4. Agreed. nt

[caledesi]

10. I have such respect for Clark. We have so many GREAT candidates

(unlike the thugs), hey I'll take Clark as a nominee for Prez or at least Secretary of Defense.
I like him...but I must confess I like a lot of our nominees.

edit: usual

[cyclezealot]

5. The surge.

If the surge backfires, Bush will be blamed. If BUsh does not get his surge; he will use it as a political ploy to blame Democrats for the loss of Iraq. Will we know how to act with the political dynamics, should he not get his surge. We all know, Bush is just using the troops as political cover with his surge, to protect some Repuke azz. As he puts more in harms way.

[Adelante]

6. Exactly right nt

[Jai4WKC08]

9. McCain is counting on there being no "surge"

He knows it isn't feasible, knew it when he proposed it, but he's trying to win over the Repub base that thinks we haven't done enough to win in Iraq. I suspect McCain is as surprised as anyone that Bush is planning to implement it, and praying that the Dems will stop it, so that he can go into the Repub primaries saying, "we'd be winning won if they would have listened to me."

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. McCain has a political fallback

He will claim that Bush the surge is nit BIG enough and LONG enough. McCain knows that our military can not sustain the type of surge McCain is advising for; 50,000 troops for a long sustained period. He will blame Bush for backing a half way measure with 20,000 troops for 6 mopnths, or something in that neighborhood. I think McCain has become the exact type of cyncial politician that he once claimed he wasn't.

[cyclezealot]

17. So do we go along with sacrificing our soldiers for

political reasons; as bush is doing? Just for political reasons/ as bush is doing? How do we handle it. Maybe Murtha is our best spokesperson/ he takes no crap and speaks plainly.

[Fermezlabush]

7. Always the right thing AT THE RIGHT TIME (not when it's opportunistic)

That's a man with integrity!

[FrenchieCat]

8. Exactly right on that count!

Exactly right! :thumbsup:

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Clark is never opportunistic

Which is one reason why the Republicans tried so hard to tarr him as opportunistic when he first declared he was running for the Democratic nomination in 2004. Karl Rove always went at opponents greatest strengths. Clark has integrity big time, always has and always will, it's simply par of who he isw. When Clark gives his opinion on a serious matter, you know that he didn't just review some polling group data before he opened his mouth.

[Clarkie1]

11. K & R. nt

[Auntie Bush]

12. Judy Woodruff on Meet the Press said that the term "surge" is just

another word/spin for "escalation" as in Viet Nam. Clark should remind folks that bush* who is too ignorant and stupid to know that's what we did in Viet Nam when thousands of our troops were killed. People would really take note coming from a General who actually fought there. Clark and all Dems should never let bush* get away with using the term surge when he really means escalation.

[Donna Zen]

15. A good point

I noticed that Speaker Pelosi refused to use the word "surge" this morning, and instead stuck to escalate, escalate, escalate.

[NV1962]

16. It's not a "surge" - it's a "bubble"

One that needs lancing before it becomes a full-grown pustule and blows up in our face.

[Auntie Bush]

18. Yuck! That sounds more like a ruptured boil than a bubble! Duck! n/t