Who do we want running our country?
The Smart Surge: Diplomacy
By Wesley K. Clark
The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but absent a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical.
Yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would allow for more roadblocks, patrols and neighborhood-clearing operations. Some initial successes would be evident. But how significant would this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.
Rapid Fire - Silver Bullets writes, "Read for yourself the brilliant Op-Ed written by Wes Clark in advance of President Bush's announcement on escalating this war. That's what leaders do, they lead and act--as opposed to RE-acting after the fact to the Bush Surge conference!"
From Newshog: "Gen. Wesley Clark isn't at all confident that Bush's plan will deliver any kind of victory and suggests instead a surge of diplomacy, saying that "underlying problems are political, not military". Other experts agree and also point out that "U.S. attempts to reconcile Iraq's warring factions are excluding the very people who need reconciling -- the Sunni-led insurgents and their archenemies, the Shiite militias."
George Sand at Arkansas Politics Blog says, "When you finish reading it, you’ll know why I think this man should be our next President of the United States and why the Decider couldn’t or wouldn’t recognize dipolmacy if it bit him in the arse."
From Cold Flute: "Ever since Wesley Clark started appearing on TV as a military analyst early in the war, he's been making a lot of sense... If Wesley Clark is going to run, let's hope he does it soon."
Arkansas radio host Clyde Clifford asks on the Beaker Street Blog, "On military matters to whom would you listen? George Bush or Wesley Clark."
Josh Marshall interprets very simply, "It's the diplomacy, stupid."
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo does the math.
Steve Clemons at Washington Note rates it a "zinger op-ed."
Garnet Donkey said, "Clark deals with the issue nicely. He points out that the surge is a foolish and downright dangerous diversionary tactic."
Down With Tyranny laments: "One military man-- one with a great deal of success behind him-- whose advice Bush would never listen to in a million years, is former NATO commander in chief, Wes Clark."
Norwegianity noted succinctly, "Wesley Clark wasted no time in responding to this "surge" bullshit."
Evergreen Politics yearns: "Oh, what we would give to have the grown-ups, like Clark, in charge of foreign policy again!"
The Democratic Daily called it a "a rather Kerryesque stance" on its site started and run by Kerry supporters.
Great Minds Think Like Me called it "A message from the next President of the United States."
As Tom Rinaldo points out today on dKos, "Smack dab in the Beltway's morning newspaper." In what Rinaldo called "an unusual move," General Clark had a similar op-ed in London's Independent over the weekend, "Bush's 'surge' will backfire."
General Clark's opinions are highly respected in Europe. By publishing his OpEd on back to back days in both London and Washington DC, General Clark has signaled his intentions to frontally take on Bush regarding Bush's approach to the entire Middle East now, much as General Clark took Bush on regarding Iraq and the War on Terror when Clark last ran for President in 2004. It seems it will once again take a General to make the case that the only solutions in the Middle East that we possibly want to live with are political, not military.
The first piece also drew attention from bloggers in the US and Europe, including British Labour MP John McDonnell:
It is almost impossible to find any expert commentator that believes the "troops surge" strategy will work. In fact most agree with General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, that the "surge strategy will backfire."-snip
As General Clark states in Iraq "the neocons' vision has failed." Britain needs to differentiate itself from the failed and increasingly dangerous Middle East policy of George Bush.
-snip
The test of the Chancellor's new found independence will be whether he publicly supports this approach or remains silent whilst the Bush regime blunders further into igniting the Middle East.
Juan Cole noted "Wesley Clark says it won't work"; Thinking Peace carries a sidebar with a long quote from General Clark; The Unknown Candidate says, "Excellent op ed in the Independent by Wes Clark on the folly of escalating ("surging") the war in Iraq."
For Sande, Wes "hits the nail on the head":
Similarly and with better insight and understanding, Wesley Clark's recent article in the Independent, a British paper, hits the nail on the head. He points out the fundamental issue that is most glaring in the Bush Iraq position.The glaring error is the actual policy itself. The policy is the product of the neo-conservatives and can be traced back to the Project for a New American Century's PNAC document of September 2000.
In a nutshell PNAC is perhaps the screwiest document since Hitler's Mein Kampf. It is equally brutal and in direct opposition to all things democratic. In short it is a calling to world domination through unilateral and overwhelming military force.
Little Green Fascists says "Wesley Clark hates the troops." (Heh.) Palestinian Pundit says, I don't know what. Brazilian press covered the story. Australia has too many to list. And let's not forget Poland.
Nettertainment makes a further, deeper point:
Here's why I think Wes Clark should have some position in the next Administration, like President, Vice President, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, or Secretary of Defense. From The Independent, "Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire":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.So while John McCain allows that he's for escalation as some sort of gift to the forces already there, Clark reveals them as the exact opposite, death warrants.
Who do we want running our country?
