Looks like my earlier foray into military analysis was correct. Newly-appointed commander of the war in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan (whom Palin referred to as "McClellan" in the debate), had this to say about the surge strategy:
“The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' ” McKiernan emphasized, saying that what is required instead is a “sustained commitment” to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many more years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.
Yet in the debate tonight Gov. Palin said, and I'm paraphrasing, "A surge or a similar strategy like that is what is needed to win the war in Afghanistan."
So does the McCain camp want to listen to and act on the advice of the Generals, which McCain has stated is his policy, or not?
Remember, one of the major reasons we've been fighting in Iraq for five years is because of the power vacuum created by the interim government's decision to ignore the advice of the generals and disband the Iraqi army.
Why do the neocons profess to support the troops so vehemently when they consistantly undermine them by ignoring the advice of military leaders, vote against bills for veterans' benefits, reward Haliburton with no-bid contracts to build extremely sub-par barracks and mess halls, and fail to supply the troops with the equipment and armor they need?
Maybe they just don't know what the word "support" means. I think this calls for another entry in the neocon dictionary:
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: To use the US Military as a pawn in furthering political and ideological desires.