George Will and David Brooks Join Critics of the 'Surge'/ Editor & Publisher

George Will and David Brooks Join Critics of the 'Surge'

By E&P Staff

Published: January 07, 2007 8:35 AM ET

NEW YORK --Among the many newspaper columnists questioning President Bush's plan to send 20,000 or more fresh troops to Iraq are quite a few conservatives breaking with the White House on this.

Oliver North, for example, attacked the idea in his syndicated column on Friday and today, in the Washington Post, George Will comments that the "surge" idea is basically too little and too late, and will only lead to a "protracted" U.S. struggle. The column is titled, "Surge, or Power Failure?"

Meanwhile, David Brooks at The New York Times comments, "Unfortunately, if the goal is to create a stable, unified Iraq, the surge is a good policy three years too late." It's chance for success is almost nil.

Will identifies a "better policy" as Richard Nixon's decision to announce a phased pullout from Vietnam: "The announced policy of withdrawals gave the U.S. some leverage to force the government in Saigon — not a paragon, but better than the government in Baghdad today — to recognize that the clock was running on its acceptance of responsibility for Vietnam's security," Will writes.

<snip>

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528647

...and now expanding on a failed war is going to produce a catastrophe for the U.S. ten times worse than Vietnam.

:grr:

is just as big an idiot or TRAITOR!

George Will is just a bit behind the times as usual. One of the biggest war cheerleaders out there.

Only a malfunctioning android would believe a word from either of their lying mouths.

on edit: I'm glad if they are against the "surge" (escalation), but if they are it is for purely selfish reasons.

He called upon Bush to admit mistakes regarding the war and with WMD back in 2004.

and occupation of Iraq are now "distancing" themselves from it. I can only surmise they are doing this in order to point fingers at Iran and say "these are the real bad guys, deal with them and all your Iraq problems will go away". They don't want a troop escalation for Iraq only because they want them in reserve for Iran, imo.

1) The necessary ratio of "policing" forces to population in this case may be more on the order of 1/25 than 1/50. Exceptionally tight controls would be necessary so that most violent acts could be prevented; and so that if an incident (even a small one) does occur, the perpetrators could be quickly isolated to a small area and "flushed out". Furthermore, we would need: reaction forces of different sizes (quick, relatively quick, reaction forces) to deal with anything from small-scale traps up to large-scale "revolts"; forces concentrated in some areas to protect certain high-value targets; forces deployed to control ingress-to, egress-from the (large) area; etc. Plus, soldiers must rest, be fed, supplied, trained -- and have recreation/leave opportunities.
2) The population must be able to trust these "policing" forces to do their job and follow their orders impartially, professionally, etc -- and to maintain security. (People desperate for security will often turn to whatever forces (charlatans) seem to offer some hope of it -- perhaps only to realize afterwards that they have given up their options (freedoms, etc) -- and have found no security (and maybe even a greater lack of it).)
3) We face huge problems with language, cultural differences and a dearth of local knowledge.
4) Pretty much anyone who "cooperates" with us is looking to their own benefit, and generally we don't seem to understand the games they're playing (or at least, we don't seem to evidence this). Moreover, without this understanding, we can't tell when they're playing us -- and are therefore susceptible to them using us. (For example, it can expected that many of the other players are unhappy with the rise in power of the Mahdi Army -- and are looking for any opportunity to take it, and al-Sadr, down a peg or two (or a zillion), regardless of whether al-Sadr's power is more real or nominal -- and regardless of who else profits (like, say, SCIRI).)
5) The central "government" is an abomination in western terms, and exchanging one crowd of self-servers ("self" taken broadly) for another crowd of self-servers promises little hope. The game now is to minimize outside influence*, not to acheive some "win". The latter is no longer possible -- and it was never practical (not practical to a degree -- and on a scale -- that essentially means impossible), as many of us argued at the time of the first Gulf War. (How far we fell in a little over a decade.)
6) There are many competing interests in Iraq (and outside meddlers); false "flagging" is going on; and when the various players have to show their cards, things could change quickly.

*: Since neocons are servants of the most short-sighted, radical and rapacious corporatists, this is unlikely to happen with them (neocons, their overlords) in power. And it matters little whether the servants and fellow-travelers of the neocons are neocons themselves, as long as they are fellow-travelers -- and servants.

will be destroyed come 2008. Iraq will drag the party down to the bottom. They know this and they want a way out so that they come come back and terrorize us for another four years with a McCain/Rudy/Romney/Brownback/Gingrich Presidency. Besides, Will and Brooks wanted this war back in 2002 and now they got it! May it sink the GOP and Conservativism!