No More 'Surge' Protection? Now Oliver North Comes Out Against Iraq Plan

[babylonsister]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003528386

No More 'Surge' Protection? Now Oliver North Comes Out Against Iraq Plan

By E&P Staff

Published: January 05, 2007 2:50 PM ET

NEW YORK Bob Herbert and our own Joe Galloway, you'd expect -- even, by this point, Thomas Friedman -- but Oliver North? But it happened, in the hawkish Fox News contributor's new syndicated column, where he came out against President Bush's reported plan to escalate the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

North recalls that on his recent return 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.

"The call for incrementally increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq -- a 'solution' that was first proffered last summer as the congressional election campaign heated up -- sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the mid 1960s....

"Adding 10,000 or 20,000 more U.S. combat troops -- mostly soldiers and Marines -- isn't going to improve Iraqi willingness to fight their own fight -- an imperative if we are to claim victory in this war....

"A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets."

The entire column can be found at: www.humanevents.com.

[fooj]

1. Amazing.

Wonder what Little Lord Pissypants is going to do about this new PR disaster...and it's Ollie "I don't recall" North! BWAHAHAHAHA!

[formercia]

2. Crusaders against the Crusade.

Oh, well.

[slackmaster]

3. It's a rare day I find myself agreeing with Oliver North

This is one of them.

[MADem]

4. Good old Ollie....if he doesn't have his finger up his ass, he has it in the wind!!! NT

[Original Jack]

5. RAZOR SHARP!

Good one!

[MannyGoldstein]

6. I Saw Ollie the Other Day

Getting his ass kicked by, of all people, O'Reilly!

Ollie was saying that Iraq is going great - that we just need to send more contractors and civilians to build stuff. O'Reilly, I was stunned to see, told Ollie that he was on crack - that we cannot defend ourselves now in Iraq, how can we add more civilians?

[Double T]

7. The more opposition bush gets from All the political factions against..........

his surge, the more bush will be determined to do IT.

[beaconess]

8. "I'm the Decider, Damnit!"

[foo_bar]

9. Ollie's answer to escalation is doing it off the books

A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in U.S. troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more U.S. combat troops is simply sending more targets.

I think the Contras are still waiting for those trainers.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Proof that Bush is a real uniter

For the first time, I agree with Colonel North.

The call for incrementally increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq -- a 'solution' that was first proffered last summer as the congressional election campaign heated up -- sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the mid 1960s.

In fact, that is exactly what bothers me about it.