More troops for Iraq 'too little, too late': former NATO commander

[maddezmom]

LONDON (AFP) - The former commander of NATO forces in Kosovo, General Wesley Clark, has said that sending more US troops to Iraq would be "too little, too late", and could worsen the situation for coalition forces.

US President George W. Bush is expected to announce reinforcements for Iraq but Clark said the time for a military solution was past and a region-wide initiative was needed to try to end the bloody sectarian violence.

Such a recommendation was put forward in the US Iraq Study Group report last year and has been backed by Bush's key ally in Iraq and the so-called "war on terror", British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"We've never had enough troops in Iraq," Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces from 1997-2000, wrote in Britain's Independent on Sunday newspaper.

more:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070107/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqmilitarynato_070107031045

US general points the finger over 'doomed' troop policy in Iraq
Ex-Nato chief, writing in the 'IoS', says sending 20,000 soldiers would be 'too little, too late' and may alienate Iraqis further
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 07 January 2007
Wesley Clark, the former Nato commander who led the 1999 war in Kosovo, is urging President George Bush not to send more troops to Iraq, saying the "surge" in forces being considered by the White House would be too little, too late and could only deepen the hole that the United States and its allies have dug themselves.

Writing exclusively in The Independent on Sunday, General Clark said the time for a military solution was long past, that US troops lack the skills and the political legitimacy to pacify the conflict-ridden regions, and that the only way forward was a political initiative encompassing the entire region.

"We've never had enough troops in Iraq," writes General Clark, who was the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato forces from 1997-2000. "In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq, that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops so adding 20,000 now is too little, too late."

"What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace," he added.

more:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2132566.ece

[wtmusic]

1. There aren't enough troops in the world, Wes

That's the difference between a military outlook and a diplomatic one.

[TacticalPeek]

2. "We are well past the point of more troops in Iraq" - Wesley Clark

"The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, 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 - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed." - Wesley Clark
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2132496.ece

That's the difference between reading the articles and links and ... well, not, apparently.

[wtmusic]

9. Clark -- "We've never had enough troops in Iraq"

And there's the difference between selectively quoting or presenting the whole picture.

But don't let me burst your Wes-bubble. :loveya:

[KittyWampus]

6. Um, Clark has been highlighting the need for diplomacy and does so here as well

Did you read what he wrote or just reacting blindly?

[democrank]

3. Thank you, General Clark.

Once in a great while, the sound of reason slips into our national dialogue.

[Boo Boo]

4. k&r

:kick:

[tabasco]

5. I salute you General Clark!

:patriot:

You are a great American General Clark!

[Barrett808]

7. Far too little, far too late, says I

The "surge" escalation is criminal. Impeach.

[MissWaverly]

8. Wes Clark has once again spoken out the truth in plain English

the the American people can understand, just imagine what would have happened if the
Brits had sent in troops during our own civil war, would Grant have changed his strategy,
or Robert E. Lee, no, it is ludicrous to think that 20,000 additional troops can handle
a city of 6 million in which there is no security at all at the moment as secterian strife
rages.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. He's right about too little too late.

The morality or immorality of the war is a separate issue, but the truth is that if we were going to go in, we went in with far, far too few troops, as Gen. Shinseki essentially got sacked for pointing out.

Frankly, I doubt if any number of troops would have enabled us to control Iraq in the long term, but it at least would prevented the outbreak of chaos and delayed the rise of the militias that happened immediately upon the fall of the Hussein regime.

At this point, adding an extra 20,000 troops is like throwing a Dixie cup of water into a raging inferno, but that doesn't change the fact that things might have gone dramatically different, at least in the beginning, if Shinseki's advice had been heeded.

Mr Cutsie :loveya: is now on my ignore list.