wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Jeff C from NYC September 12, 2008 - 12:24PM

  I understand the Gen. Patraeus did good work running Anbar earlier in the war using his counter insurgency concepts. He was 'rewarded' by being sent back to a post at the War College. Meanwhile the Administration made one bad decision after another.

  Who found him - what was their thinking - was it just plain dumb luck? The old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day may or may not fit here.

  Ask of Gen. Patraeus: would he do it again? In other words knowing how to make the best of a terrible situation - is that enought to give him confidence that he would take part in a situation another time. Or, is it reckless to think that the smart bandaid is still the end game of a suicidal policy/

  
  
• [2] Marcia from Chelsea September 12, 2008 - 12:25PM

  Let's not forget (1) that the guest's articulate discussion ignores the most salient issue - this was NOT a war into which the U.S. was dragged; there was no reason for the war and (2) that the home base for the guest is the "think tank" of which Paul Wolfowitz was the head.

  
  
• [3] Norman from Greenwich Village September 12, 2008 - 12:30PM

  Does your guest know what are the 'secret methods' against the insurgency that Bob Woodward talks about in his new book?

  
  
• [4] chris o from new york city September 12, 2008 - 12:32PM

  It seems like the success of the "surge" is now accepted by all. This to me is a great propaganda victory. It is much better to say: "we sent in more troops, imposed our will and got what we want" than to say, "we realized we couldn't beat them, so we joined with them against a common 3rd party enemy."

  If several hundred thousand troops were needed or about 200K more than we had there, how do 30K solve the problem? If we sent NO extra troops, I believe the situation in Iraq would have stabilized to where it is. Because the key to the surge was getting the Sunni insurgents to stop fighting us and to fight the foreign or local al-Qaeda extremists. And of course, the Sadr ceasefire helped a lot.

  The extra troops were window dressing, the ploy to pin our propaganda campaign of success on and I believe the surge was explicity devised (by the craven political leadership) with this in mind.

  
  
• [5] D Clark from Chatham, NJ September 12, 2008 - 12:36PM

  Please tell Linda Robinson that the word "cache" (of weapons) is pronounced the same as "cash". Her mistaken pronunciation as "cashay" - becoming quite common, unfortunately - is the pronunication of another French word "cachet" (meaning clout, class, distinction). It's confusing to hear about a "cachet" of weapons! Mispronunciation undermines the speaker's credibility.

  Thank you.

  
  
• [6] D Clark from Chatham, NJ September 12, 2008 - 12:42PM

  Surprise! In speaking of the Russian invasion of Georgia, Still President Bush announced to the world that unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is just WRONG. If only he had known that sooner! He must feel so stupid. Surge or no surge, the presence of an invading army in the nation of Iraq, regardless of what some in the West may have thought of the repressive Saddam regime, is a gross violation of international law ... an example of the "might makes right" approach that has brought our nation into international disrespect, or worse. Seven years after the 9/11 attacks we are still - with the surge and our failure to admit error - acting like the boss of the world. The apologia defending more deaths and ill-informed attempts to sort out this troubled region is embarrassing and futile.