OPPOSITION TO 'THE SURGE'

[Zlatko Waterman]

( a good summary of the opposition, domestic, foreign and among the military itself, by Jim Lobe. From Inter-Press Service. Even former Iran-Contra operator Oliver North, now a far-right talk show host, opposes "the surge.")


Published on Saturday, January 6, 2007 by the Inter Press Service
Bush's Surge Strategy Faces Heavy Opposition
by Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - If, as expected, George W. Bush next week announces his intention to "surge" some 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to pacify Baghdad and Sunni-dominated al-Anbar province, he may find himself in a tougher fight than he expected even a week ago.

(link to the whole article)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0106-04.htm

[Zlatko Waterman]

Here are two good articles-- one on the history of "surges" by Ann Wright, and another article by Wesley Clark ( remember him?)

( link)


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807C.shtml

[mnaz]

It won't work, and I hope we don't buy it-- philosophically, politically, and literally (attn: Congress).

Iraq is far too profoundly divided at this point to presume that Bush may yet impose his failed "solution" on the country simply by sending 20,000 more troops. That is the height of wishful thinking IMO. We need to begin working on an equitable breakup of Iraq. I don't see how more militarism, nearly 4 years into this thing, is going to do anything but cause more widespread destruction and death, even "retaliatory" terror attacks in Iraq and abroad. We need to partition Iraq and involve all of the major regional players in the process. It's time to cut our losses and move on, and if hawks want to label that as a "setback for democracy and freedom" (dubious claim), then so be it.

[stilltrucking]

We need to begin working on an equitable breakup of Iraq.

How do you think we could impose anything on Iraq at this stage? Seems like playing 52 pick up at this point. It is broke and we can't fix it.
I am way beyond pessimism. But it is probably just my own personal despair.

Next stop Tehran.

[Zlatko Waterman]

We just commited ground troops to Somalia, killed 50 "insurgents" with bombers and helicopter rockets, including killing an additional unarmed 31 civilians.

A third war?

Maybe Tehran is the fourth?

--Z

[mnaz]

well st, that was my point, essentially... the "breakup", or partitioning of Iraq may be inevitable, so our political/diplomatic efforts should be redirected accordingly, with Iraq's neighbors also included in the process. And no troop surge, please.

As Marina Ottaway, in the 1/07 issue of Current History puts it:

The Bush Administration has sought to address these (factional) conflicts by forming a government of national renconciliation. The strategy has failed. Two completely different approaches are now being discussed. One is the formation of a strong government, less democratic and inclusive than the present one, but capable of imposing order. The second is the de facto partition of Iraq into autonomous regions. The strong government idea is a chimera, because in a country plagued by armed groups a government cannot be strong without security forces that can overwhelm all opponents, and such security forces simply do not exist in Iraq.

The de facto partition of Iraq into largely autonomous regions is a real possibility; in fact, it may be impossible to prevent at this point.

Marina Ottaway is director of the Middle East program at the Carnegie Endowment. She serves as an advisor to the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton.

[Zlatko Waterman]

Here's another good article against the "surge"-- interviewing Leon Panetta, White House Chief of Staff under Clinton and a member of the Iraq Study Group:


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010907T.shtml


--Z

[stilltrucking]

From the NY Times

Admiral Fallon would be the first Navy officer to serve as the senior officer of the Central Command, which is managing simultaneous ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Fallon is regarded within the military as one of its stronger regional combat commanders, and his possible appointment also reflects a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power, a mission that relies heavily on naval forces and combat airpower to project American influence in the Persian Gulf.

I just wondered why an admiral was named to head the central command. Somebody said it had something to do with Iran.

But that has nothing to do with what you all were talking about. sorry

[hester_prynne]

Robotic
psychotic,
speaks graffiti
on sacred trust,
an ignorant's lust,
win or bust.

Empowered
coward,
talks in fighty
high noon prose,
a liar's nose,
really does grow.

Chief
grief,
begs in captain
ahab growl,
complete with scowl,
he can kiss my bowel.

H

[jimboloco]

i'd kiss yer bowel
from afar
twisted colon
mercy

anyhow i agree
with venomous anathema
it sucks
we shoulda pulled out 20,000

got to do a street demo downtown st pete
looking up at old building in late afternoon sunshine
holding out my BUSHWHACKED sign
75 folks
lots of honks
we gotta get a prez with a clue
the congress don't know what to do
to stop this fool.

[e_dog]

Anyone who opposes a surge but doesn't support immediate withdrawal is in contradiction with himself.

Either you support the troops being there or you support withdrawal. This half-assed shit is ridiculous. LEAVE NOW!