53% of U.S. foreign policy experts now oppose the surge

That smacks of goalpost-moving to me. AIUI, the current issue is one of support for the surge now, being down from support for the surge when it was first proposed. So it wasn’t really a question of these experts believing the war was going well in early 2007, but rather one of them believing the (at the time) proposed surge being likely to make things better.

Please fight any ignorance I’m displaying here.

Ok…I concede I could have misread what little there is on the questions asked. Re-reading the bit cited in the OP a bit more carefully I can see how you read it the way you do. Seems a bit fickle too me, but what the hell…we are only talking about a shift of 22% among 108 supposed ‘experts’ after all (24 people basically). I’d have to actually get off my lazy butt to see what positions earlier polls were for these ‘experts’…something I’m unlikely to do right now.


I also found this article somewhat unsatisfying when I read it yesterday. We can argue about its significance, but we really don’t have a lot to go on. Who are these experts? How exactly have those 22% changed their opinions, and why? Are they coming forward in ways other than answering this survey? The details are murky.

My best guess is that before these 24 “experts” weren’t opposed to the surge (which is different from actually supporting it) and now they are opposed. They wanted to wait and see and they now feel that they’ve waited and seen.

Quote from the article, bolding mine:

Well, that explains why only 53% oppose the surge. Although, 2005 Bush would tell you that’s a mandate…but the truth is, if you want the good stuff you have to listen to the grunts, the area experts, the same people who wrote the reports back in 2002 which accurately chronicled what would happen when we invaded Iraq. If you listen to others, who are politically motivated to not tell the truth to the public you get things like people saying Iraq will cost taxpayers 1.8 billion.

It might have been useful to also bold former, marshmallow. Even that might be inconclusive. Former Sec’y of State, for instance, is that limited to Powell, or does it also include Albright, Christopher, Kissinger and folks like that?

I wonder if the responses were anonymous?

I think that the “Surge” is neither here nor there. Our military is very good at what they do, as long as they’re not asked to do other stuff. The problem is, it’s the other stuff that really needs to be done, and the military is the wrong tool for the job. We shouldn’t be setting them up like that.

Its the old bait and switch. First, they tell us the surge is needed so that political progress can be made, a means to an end. Then they try to tell us the surge is going well, even though political progress is nil, as if the means were the end itself.

Well, if this is democracy, spare me and hopefully, all Iraqis from it:

Two Senators Call for New Leader in Iraq

US invaders and their puppets, out of Iraq now!

To be fair, Red, if they’re supposed to be our puppets they’re doing a pretty miserable job. For example, they seemingly refuse to sign the oil law. It’s understandable why they wouldn’t wish to do so, since they’d end up becoming a pinata at the nearest available lamp post, but if we were proper guardians we could take care of such pesky matters or should’ve attempted to grow a strong man with local support from the Iraqi army when we first went in. We tried to have it both ways, so we have (so far) fucked up a pretty easy smash and grab operation.