22% jump in foreign policy analysts that oppose Bush's surge

As time has goes on, the experts grow less confident that the troop surge will be a success.  When Bush announced the new military strategy back in February, only 31% of foreign policy analysts, liberal and conservative, opposed the new approach.  Today, nearly one week after the most violent day since the war began, more than half say surge is not working.

The numbers were released this morning by Foreign Policy Magazine:

More than half of top U.S. foreign policy experts oppose PresidentGeorge W. Bush's troop increase as a strategy for stabilizing Baghdad,saying the plan has harmed U.S. national security, according to a newsurvey.

As Congress and the White House await the Septemberrelease of a key progress report on Iraq, 53 percent of the expertspolled by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progresssaid 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, showedopposition to the so-called "surge" across the political spectrum, withabout two-thirds of conservatives saying it has been ineffective ormade things worse in Iraq.

Maybe the two-thirds of conservatives who say the strategy has been ineffective can relay that message to their talk-radio friends.

This study comes amid a new report by the AP about troop exhaustion.  The military has reached its breaking point.  This spring, the Administration will run out of forces to send to Iraq.  They have three options:

_Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.

_Breaking the military's pledge to keep soldiers in Iraq  for no longer than 15 months.

_Breaching a commitment to give soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.

Something has to give.  Bush will need to decide whether to anger military families even more by extending deployments, hurting the Republican Party long-term.  Will the Republicans in Congress let Bush destroy their reelection chances in 2008?

Karl Rove's master plan was a "permanent Republican majority."  This war -- one that Karl Rove helped sell -- is having exactly the opposite effect.

Comments

[granny]

It seems, in this time of small hopes, like a lovely idea that Rove will end up in the history books as the architect of the death of the Republican Party as it is known.

[daveinboca]

As an Arabist FSO ret'd, I got this crock of shit in my e-mail this morning, looked at it, noted that there was no list of "non-partisan experts," remembered that William Dobson is an ultra-left Newsweak agitpreppie, and dismissed the poll as just more rubbish from the Soros wing of the infra-red left [the Euro-Commie type]. The Carnegie Endowment runs FP, and it has gone downhill fast since Bill Maynes left the Mging Editor job.

I think Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bremer eff-ed up big-time, but the surge is working, no matter what anonymous "non-partisan experts" polled by an ultra-left rag might say. I believe Petraeus, not a bunch of anonymous farts.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

"ultra-left Newsweak agitpreppie?" How is that an objective statement?

And I am interested, how do you think the surge is working? Name some political accomplishments that have been made since its enaction -- because, after all, the point of the surge was to bring about political stability. So show me the political stability.