Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

The rise in troop numbers could reduce the urgency for political effort
The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

Writing exclusively in The Independent on Sunday
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2132496.ece

US general points the finger over 'doomed' troop policy in Iraq
Ex-Nato chief, writing in the 'IoS', says sending 20,000 soldiers would be 'too little, too late' and may alienate Iraqis further
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2132566.ece

:thumbsup:

People voted for a nitwit they wanted to have a beer with. The media egged them on.

Wes Clark is a pragmatist and a realist, but usually an optimist as well. I am sad reading this.

He usually holds out SOME hope for SOME way to mitigate the disaster, but here he describes a process BushCo will not, and perhaps can not, follow.

It's just "stay the course more," as he says. Heaven only knows what will be happening two years from now.

Now bush sits and pleasures himself while his hand picked yes men do his dirt. If Nero fiddled while Rome burned, bush sleeps while Iraq explodes. 51% of the USA should fall on their knees tonight and pray to their god for forgiveness for what they have done to the country and the rest of us.

I voted for Clark in 2004 even though he had already decided not to run. It seems I had more faith in him than he had in himself. I wish he had continued to run and I wish the people would have been smart enough to see we needed military and diplimatic experience in the WH to clean up the mess bush has made. JMHO :shrug:

for Wes to go outside this country's media to try and stop Bush is very serious. :(

I'm getting sick to my stomach with nerves.

He is probably the country's expert on world diplomacy and America's security. And it doesn't hurt to have him respected by Muslims enough to have had him participate recently in a big Middle East conference in Dubai, to say nothing of being a hero to the Kosovar Albanians (Muslims) whom Clark saved from Milosevic's ethnic cleansing. Clark was right about no-blank-check IWR, right about Iraq being a distraction from the real war on terror. And IMO he's right about America's SECURITY being about the combination of military security, economic security, energy security, environmental security, and respect for the Constitution. He sees the big picture. He gets it!

Wes is willing to put in the hard work. Bush doesn't know the meaning.......and the world is spinning and people are dying and our children's futures are dimming.

snip>>>>>>>


America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.


Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

I hope he runs again in '08.

Does anyone know if he is seriously considering a bid?

He'd be a great addition to the field of candidates, imho.

He appears to be looking into the money aspect at this point. Which can be difficult, although George Soros seems to like him quite a bit.

He will be hosting a two day conference at UCLA in March where the topic will be Nuclear Weapons and National Security. (a timely topic, I would say).

I like him because he is a great humanitarian.

He said he was a "liberal" when no one else would.

She again wrote his name in for the general election. She said that it was a "given" that the Democratic ticket would never win North Carolina. I was a dutiful Democrat and voted Kerry/Edwards, but my sister proved to be right.

Here in Southern Illinois we were one of the few counties that Kerry carried. Of course Chicago has more votes than the rest of the state, so we just pray that they make the right choice. Next time, I will vote how I want and not worry about it, let Chicago be responsible. Just joking, maybe. ;)

Wowie is all I have to say. He is fighting the fight for truth. Why oh Why don't THEY listen, to someone who knows what he is talking about. OMG!!!

As usual.

He doesn't speak senatorial at all. He doesn't fillibuster.

military and geopolitical issues in a way that everyone can understand. My respect for him continues to grow.