(But Not Exactly Wrong In This Case)
So, Reuters sayeth:
U.S. Foreign Policy Experts Oppose Surge
More than half of top U.S. foreign policy experts oppose President George W. Bush's troop increase as a strategy for stabilizing Baghdad, saying the plan has harmed U.S. national security, according to a new survey.
As Congress and the White House await the September release of a key progress report on Iraq, 53 percent of the experts polled by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress said they now oppose Bush's troop build-up.
That is a 22 percentage point jump since the strategy was announced early this year.
The survey of 108 experts, including Republicans and Democrats, showed opposition to the so-called "surge" across the political spectrum, with about two-thirds of conservatives saying it has been ineffective or made things worse in Iraq.Now, I've notoriously, if tentatively, supported the surge here, being, I think, careful to note that I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm talking about. But as a reasonably well-informed layperson (i.e., as someone who hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about) I (tentatively) concluded that the surge, though sucking as an idea, sucked less than any available alternative.
Now it looks like the experts have concluded that it was, in fact, a bad idea.
Which is very bad.
Not to seem overly fastidious about such things, or to make excuses, but--as the information above seems to confirm--experts were apparently mainly pro-surge back when I was advocating it.
I am still inclined to back the surge strategy (easy for me to say, as my ass is not on the line)...but only if we are going to get something like the straight dope from General Petraeus. If we continue to get propaganda and disinformation (ah, Ronnie, your administration is starting to look good in retrospect), then, I think, we have to leave. If we are deprived by the administration of the information required to rationally choose policy, we have to get out.