http://ga4.org/campaign/stopthesurge An email from Wesley Clark on the surge...
-------------------
We must stop George Bush's Iraq surge. Without changing the strategy, this is simply a continuation of "stay the course."
We cannot support the increase in troops unless George Bush disavows the NeoCon strategy and presents a new strategy. George Bush has been using the troops for the past four years trying to divide the country between those who support the war and those who do not.
President Bush is trying to divide us again with his expected call this week for a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win?" Probably not. But this military stop-gap will certainly distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved politically and diplomatically.
What President Bush's Iraq 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 -- all while reducing the urgency of reaching the ultimate political solution we need.
Don't let George Bush divide us. Please join me in urging President Bush to stop the "surge," and instead change the strategy -- forward an email to the White House now!
http://securingamerica.com/stopthesurge Below are excerpts from the op-ed I wrote that was published in the Washington Post today, January 8, 2007, summarizing my thoughts about Bush's Iraq "surge" plan:
The Smart Surge: Diplomacy
...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.
...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 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 increasing 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.
...Dealing with is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts and threatening statements. 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.
Tell President Bush to stop the "surge" in Iraq, and instead change the strategy -- forward an email to the White House now!
http://securingamerica.com/stopthesurge The bottom line: more of the same is not a winning strategy for the U.S.
Sincerely,
Wes Clark