Ollie North: bush, mccain, lieberman are WRONG- surge not the answer

[judaspriestess]

by Oliver North
Posted Jan 05, 2007

For months, advisers to President George W. Bush have been trying to convince the commander in chief that more U.S. troops in Iraq will improve prospects for victory. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), both recently returned from Iraq (and a courageous surprise stopover in Ramadi, capital of bloody Al Anbar Province) also support adding more American troops. Unfortunately, they are wrong.

"I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control," McCain said after his visit. For his part, Lieberman said the idea of sending another 30,000 troops to Iraq is "exactly" the course of action he hopes to see the president take.

McCain and Lieberman talked to many of the same officers and senior NCOs I covered for FOX News during my most recent trip to Iraq. Not one of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen or Marines I interviewed told me that they wanted more U.S. boots on the ground. In fact, nearly all expressed just the opposite: "We don't need more American troops, we need more Iraqi troops," was a common refrain. They are right.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=18797

Hell has officially frozen over

[Nbadan]

McCain/Lieberman........hummm.....I see a ticket developing.

The official ticket of has-beens who even majorities in their own party can't stand anymore.

[boutons_]

the surge, nothing but an ESCALATION, is too little, too late. The WH knows it, EVERYBODY knows it.

Even the WH is divided, plus the Repug Congress, the military is divided, the conservative/neo-cunts are divided for/against the escalation.

The chickenshit WH, who knows as well as anybody that Iraq is lost, know their plan is very clearly to fuck around with shit like this pretending to do something for 24 months until Jan 2009, spin shit like "we aren't wining, we aren't losing", then pass the bogus buck to the next administration, which will withdraw the US military and leave Iraq to radical/theocratic Moqtada/Shia. Iraq will formally break into 3 pieces, with the Sunni and Shia regions making the Paki FATAs look like Girl Scout Camp.

The WH would rather trash a couple 1000 more US military lives in the next 2 years, ANYTHING to avoid dubya/dickhead themselves seen to be withdrawing from what they started with lies and then couldn't finish with their wimpy, dickless, incompetent war management.

[Clandestino]

what would you recommend bouton?

[boutons_]

I think Iraq is lost, is not winnable with 140K, or an escalated 160K, military, the Iraqi govt/state/security forces don't not exist to stand up now or ever, the tribes and sects there are not ready for democracy, so we need to stand down, save our own blood, and let them solve their own civil war, just like Viet Nam, the sooner, the better.

Starting withdrawal now will insure that it mostly occurs on dubya's watch, so he and dickhead can't even try squirm out of their culpaibility. If impeachment won't punish them, then history will, unequivocally.

No matter how long the US lasts there, they local/regional anti-US forces will out last us.

I've read that withdrawal with take 12 - 18 months, so get it started.

The 06 elections showed the vast majority of Americans voted against the Repugs and their bullshit war. The WH works for the USA citizens, not the reverse.

Of course, what comes after the US leaves will be even worse (unlike Viet Nam), and wiill be much worse than having left Saddam in power. But the US cannot influence the future of Iraq now.

All of these loser/disaster/failure scenarios and possibilities should have been foreseen by neo-cunt/Repug men who were in adults and/or serving in DC in '65 - "75.

While responsibility for VN was shared by Dems who started and Repugs who failed to win it, who prolonged it well after VN was lost, the losing and destroying Iraq is EXCLUSIVELY the culpability of the Repugs.

Allowing the WTC to happen.

Losing Iraq.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya

[Clandestino]

who let the first WTC attack occur?

so, buttons is for cut and run... no shock there.

[boutons_]

"first WTC attack occur?"

It happened on Clinton's watch. AFAIK, it happened without warnings from the NatSec community. No excuses, though.

But with that history, plus the Cole, the Embasssy bombings in Africa, with Clinton informing the uninterested Repugs about al-Quaida, the Al-Qaida camps in Afganistan/wherever, with all the warnings the NatSec people were raising in the months before WTC, the 2001 threat environment was totally different from the first WTC attack. The passivity, inaction, and inattention of the Repugs was inexcusable.

Macho Man clanny playing the "cut and run" card. yawn.

Go ahead, clanny, "stay and bleed ... and lose".

Great plan, clanny, go execute it with your own body and family.

[Clandestino]

as you pointed out, it is not a bush/repub thing.. it is a u.s. vs terrorist thing... there have been many bombings while both parties were in power. fact is, we have to go after them and not just sit back and wait for them to bomb us. funny you didn't mention khobar towers.

and boutons, what have you ever done for your country except bitch?

[01Snake]

and boutons, what have you ever done for your country except bitch?

He's done nothing. Why would he when he hates this country.

[boutons_]

"there have been many bombings while both parties were in power. "

show me the warnings that Clinton received and ignored before the first WTC that are equivalent to the months of frantic warnings that dubya/dickhead/condi ignored before the 9/11 attack.

and clanny, do you really think that trashing you rightwing and "Christian" motherfuckers, the Repugs and their nefarious doings, etc, is the sum total of my existence?

[Nbadan]

It would take more than a few thousand additional U.S. combat troops a few more months to make a dent in the secretarian violence in Iraq, but they might help secure some Baghdad neighborhoods and the green zone. Still, this insurgent war in like a sponge, even if the U.S. squeezes in Baghdad, the Insurgents will just spread to other areas. The only way this would work is if these additional 10-20K troops were 1/10th of the total additional combat troops the U.S. was gonna put in Iraq for at least 18 months.

[Nbadan]

Gen. Wesley Clark, my designee for President 08', has an interesting campaign out to try and stop W's planned surge...

Dear President Bush,


I do not support a troop surge in Iraq. Without changing the strategy, this is simply a continuation of "stay the course."

20,000 additional troops now seems too little, too late.

We cannot support the increase in troops unless you disavow the NeoCon strategy and present a new strategy.

What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appear on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles -- if they chose to continue the conflict.

The truth is that the underlying problems in Iraq are political, not military.

Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and adding U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neocon vision has failed.

The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.

Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.

The bottom line: This is not a winning strategy for the US.
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]

WesPac (http://ga4.org/campaign/stopthesurge/6xduxg416nwxwb?qp_source=stop%5fsurge)

no surge, what we need is a new strategy.

[ChumpDumper]

The funny part is that Bushy said all along when it cam to the question of adding troops, he would listen to the generals on the ground. The generals he had on the ground didn't want any more troops, so he replaced them with generals who did. Well, Petraeus is pretty impressive: if anyone can fix this mess, he probably can. Good luck to him.

[Guru of Nothing]

Personally, I want a President that can articulate a vision beyond that which is obvious.

I'll keep searching.


Gen. Wesley Clark, my designee for President 08', has an interesting campaign out to try and stop W's planned surge...


Dear President Bush,



I do not support a troop surge in Iraq. Without changing the strategy, this is simply a continuation of "stay the course."

20,000 additional troops now seems too little, too late.

We cannot support the increase in troops unless you disavow the NeoCon strategy and present a new strategy.

What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appear on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles -- if they chose to continue the conflict.

The truth is that the underlying problems in Iraq are political, not military.

Vicious ethnic cleansing is underway, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment, security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces -- and adding U.S. efforts is likely to generate additional resistance, especially from Iraq's neighbors. More effective action is needed to resolve the struggle at the political level. A new U.S. ambassador might help, but the administration needs to recognize that the neocon vision has failed.

The administration needs a new strategy for the region, before Iran gains nuclear capabilities. While the military option must remain on the table, America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony and nuclear power, the struggle for control of Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.Isolating our adversaries hasn't worked.

Absent such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that a troop surge and accompanying rhetoric will be anything other than "staying the course" more. That wastes lives and time, bolsters the terrorists and avoids facing up to the interrelated challenges posed by a region in crisis.

The bottom line: This is not a winning strategy for the US.
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]