It is not a surge, it is an escalation. Us baby boomers know

[alfredo]

what it is all about. We remember how the Vietnam war started small and grew even as it became apparent we were not going to win.

Remember, we need to frame events. We need to cut through the bullshit propaganda. Surge is their term, not ours. Using surge is playing by their rules. Let's tell it like it is. More troops in Iraq is an escalation. When you write letters, use escalation.

Will bush's escalation work?

Will bush's escalation in Iraq only succeed in getting more of our soldiers killed and maimed.

How many will die needlessly due to bush's escalation of violence in Iraq.

On Nov 7 Americans said "enough", bring our troops home. Bush listened and is now doing the opposite, he is escalating our involvement in Iraq.

Seize the high ground in this debate. Language defines reality. Use it to our advantage and for the sake of our nation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Yes. And Nixon had a "secret plan" to end the war, too.

We saw how well that worked out.

I wonder if 20 years from now, Rummy will make a documentary, "Fog of War II"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I doubt he'll be alive

[coalition_unwilling]

3. I'm a post-Baby Boomer (born 1959) but well versed in history of

our involvement in southeast Asia. This is indeed an "escalation" and may well mirror Nixon's strategy of expanding the war in Vietnam to Cambodia and Laos (when and if we invade or attack Iran and\or Syria).

[alfredo]

10. bush's "we'll stand down when they stand up" is similar to

"Vietnamization."

Basing current policy of past failed policies is pure stupidity.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Try it this way, for the MFing stupid republics...

ES-KAH-LAY-SHUN.

[valerief]

8. I knew Ken Lay would be in there somewhere. nt

[Dr.Phool]

5. They should have called us Baby Kaboomers.

[Cronus Protagonist]

6. The word "SURGE" is clearly the work of a PR firm

They tested it on live people. Count on it. People will go along with it because it "makes sense" in the "gut" that an overwhelming force will win - it's an echo of the Powell doctrine, so it rings with pregnant possibility.

Of course, it is an escalation, the exact opposite of the will of the people nonetheless.

I would like to suggest we also refer to it as "throwing more soldiers into Bush's Iraqi quagmire", as that not only re-frames the "surge", but it places the responsibility for the quagmire on Bush's shoulders right where it should be. Bush is pouring gas on the fire.

[alfredo]

9. Throwing good money after bad. Re Powell Doctrine.

20 to 30 thousand would not constitute overwhelming force.

bush is trying to create the appearance that he is actually doing something.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I wonder if * will try LBJ's sleight of hand with the troops.

That other Texan-Tough-Guy would let a "leak" out that he was sending 100,000 more troops, which would set off protests and editorials. Then he would get on the tube and assure everybody that the rumor was false and that he was going to send "only" 50,000.

[alfredo]

11. The thing is, 50,000, or 100,000 is too little too late.

There is nothing to protect. Iraq is no more. It will never be a country. It is three warring tribes. No matter how many troops we put in, it won't do anything other than get people killed.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Especially since it looks like they are going to kill Saddam

before the 'surge' gets there. If Iraq isn't already in chaos, it sure will be after they knock off Saddam.

[alfredo]

13. Whatever is done, killing Hussein, surging or whatever,

it is meaningless. We won the battles, defeated his armies, but we lost the peace. We can't regain what we have lost. Game over.