The most succinct so far is probably the comment made by Hawaii Representative Neil Abercrombie (D) to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, quoted in the Washington Post: "This is the craziest, dumbest plan I’ve ever seen or heard of in my life.” Granted, I don't really know how informed Rep. Abercrombie is, but such blunt language directed at a senior administration official during public hearings is pretty remarkable.
I also like Max Sawicky's comments (and his great graphic), comparing Bush's 'surge to disengagement' with Nixon's invasion of Cambodia:
Tonight I hope the utter bankruptcy, the abject mendacity, the total absurdity, the bottomless evil of Bush's posture becomes manifest to all, and a mighty uproar ensues. The parade of lies would have embarrassed Tricky Dick. Who wants to be among the thousand that will die this year in pursuit of the president's ambition to cover his sorry ass? What patriot could fail to hang his head in shame at complicity in this exercise?Zbigniew Brzezinski, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, says:
The commitment of 21,500 more troops is a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily. It will engage U.S. forces in bloody street fighting that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife, not to mention the anti-American insurgency. ... America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over.Almost no one likes this plan, and even fewer people believe it has a real chance of success. There are ominous rumblings of threats and provocations toward Iran, and the possibility of a serious Constitutional crisis if Congress votes (as seems likely) to place conditions on further Iraq war funding or even to cut off funds for the 'surge' altogether. Bush administration officials are claiming already that the money has been authorized, and the new deployments will begin in a matter of weeks.
Heck 'uv a job, Bushie!