A lot is being made of Gov. Palin’s comment during the debate about Gen. McKiernan, the commander on the ground in Afghanistan seeking to implement a surge and also about her referring to him as Gen. “McClellan” by mistake.

Here's what Gen. McKiernan, the commander in Afghanistan,actually said (why he said it has not been analyzed as far as I know);  "The word that I don't use in Afghanistan is the word 'surge.'  There needs to be a sustained commitment of a variety of military and non-military resources, I believe. That's my advice to winning in Afghanistan. It won't be a short-term solution."  Last week, he said he needed as many as 15,000 combat and support troops beyond the 8,000 additional troops that were approved for deployment next year. 

The reason for his request was simple,we're starting to lose.  There has been an increase in kidnappings, robberies, and drug-related crimes that are eroding confidence.  Like the Iraqis, Afghans want stability it is no surprise that a shortage of that and basic needs is fueling violence.  Strategy reviews have been proposed to turn the war in Afghanistan around and Pentagon planners are now considering what they call an Iraq-like surge of troops to restore order, because the Chairman of Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mullen, is not convinced that we're winning in Afghanistan.  

Sound familiar? 

It should.  It is the exact situation we were facing in Iraq, pre Surge.  

And what did that surge involve?  In addition to a surge of troop deployments of more than 20,000 soldiers into Iraq, the major element of the strategy was a change in focus for the military Bush described it as establishing a"...unified, democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, and sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror."   The strategy was a change in focus, "to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security."  The President stated that the surge would then provide the time and conditions conducive to reconciliation among political and ethnic factions.     

 Oh, yes, and he was right.  The critics and Congress were wrong.  So was Obama. It worked.  

So, what it is that McKiernan wants for Afghanistanis...low and behold: a Surge, but he's loath to call it a surge.  OK, fine, General.  A Rose by any other name smells just as sweet, n'est pas?  The General may have a sense that the word has too much freight attached to it which could hurt his chances to get approval for it.  

And, by the way, with a "Mullen" at the Pentagon researching a surge for Afghanistan, and a "McKiernan" on the ground in Afghanistan, can anyone really indict her for inadvertently coming up with the name "McClellan" during the debate? I didn't see Biden rush to correct her.  Maybe he wasn't so sure, either.  In any event, the General onthe ground did, in fact, call for a Surge.  

Palin was correct.