We've had surges before, particularly in January of 2005, in the fall of 2006, for elections. And they did not significantly change the tempo of this insurgency or the level of sectarian violence. That has been continually escalating.

And I think most people I spoke to, particularly military people, doubt seriously that simply adding 20,000 troops to a city with a population, roughly, of 6 million can make a difference, given the size of the city, the population and many other factors.

It's also reported that the president will lay out some milestones. Again, this has been done before. But milestones without a timeline, without consequences will not work.

Particularly important is engaging the al-Maliki government in confronting the Shia militias. This government, the Shia government, is quite willing to go after Sunni insurgents. In fact, they would encourage us to do that. But unless we have an effort directed at all the militias, this will not succeed.

The ability to enter and clear the Shia stronghold of Sadr City and to confront the Mahdi Army is something that has to be done. And I'm very dubious that Maliki, who owes much of his political position to Sadr's support, is capable or willing to do that.

We have to take -- they have to take, I should say -- major steps, reconciliation between all the sectarian groups. They have to begin to spend their own money. The president is reported to ask tonight for additional resources for economic development. The Iraqi government is sitting on billion of dollars that they refuse to spend, particularly if it will benefit Sunnis.

Unless they begin to make their effort militarily and economically, anything we do in terms of troop increases will not be adequate and sufficient.

They also have to -- and Maliki has to reform his government. The ministerial capacity in his government is deplorable, and much of the misfeasance and malfeasance is deliberate. And unless we see tangible changes in his government, then we won't make progress going forward.

Now, the other aspect of this should be clear. To request an additional 20,000 troops indefinitely will put a huge additional strain on the Army and the Marine Corps.

We need, regardless of what the president does tonight, to increase our forces. For the first time since the era that General Clark and I served, in the '60s and '70s, we see an Army that's not ready for strategic deployment elsewhere. The strategic reserve has been exhausted; we have to replenish that.

Also, the president has to be honest about the cost. Every 10,000 troops committed to Iraq costs approximately $1.2 billion to feed, house and equip. The annual estimate is that we'll need $12 billion annually to equip, repair and replace equipment that's being used up.

These are huge costs.

And the president also has to say, candidly, that we can expect additional demands on our National Guard if we are to sustain this 20,000-troop increment.

So far all of this has been funded by supplementals. We can't continue to do that. The president has to be honest about this.

And as my colleagues have said, Senator Schumer and others, essentially these are political problems that have to be addressed by politics and diplomacy. To date, the president has relied solely on a military response to what is fundamentally political problems.

This is an insurgency, and one of the key aspects of this insurgency, this sectarian violence, is that the Shia government feels they're winning and they have no inclination at this point to change what they're doing unless we make it very clear to them that we will not support their continued refusal to step up to the plate and make the steps necessary for their own success and for the protection of our forces.

We need a new plan in Iraq. I hope the president will announce that plan tonight. But I believe it'll be more of the same.

And now let me introduce an individual who I admire immensely, General Wes Clark. Served his country as a company commander in Vietnam leading infantrymen. Was wounded and decorated for heroism. Served with distinction in the United States Army, culminating as the supreme allied commander of NATO. And someone who has the experience, the knowledge and the patriotism to reflect very soberly and very sincerely on these issues.

Wes?

…during Q&A:

QUESTION: This is a question for General Clark and Senator Reed. Clearly, the election results sent a message. The president then embarked on a reappraisal of the situation, and he's come to this conclusion.

What do you think would have been a more plausible alternative strategy? Specifically, what sort of a detailed draw-down of American troops would both of you be looking for?

REED: Well, I think the president had a very good guidelines by the Iraqi study commission. These are eminent Americans who've dedicated their life to the country, patriots, with experience -- broad experience.

And they, essentially, talked about some type of phased redeployment. And I think that is probably the context of a more detailed strategy.

I think we have to recognize that there are ongoing missions there, in terms of continuing to train Iraqi security forces; attacking Al Qaida elements, international terrorists, wherever they might be, Iraq or Somalia or elsewhere; and also, I think, ensuring that the territorial integrity of Iraq is not abused by its neighbors.

Those are missions very much different than trying to win an urban civil war insurgency. I think that's what the president should have pursued -- and he should pursue tonight. And I think also -- and he has to recognize that at this juncture the military component of this struggle is probably less significant than the political and diplomatic, and that there has to be a diplomatic effort as well as military effort.

And to solely come back to the same tune, played over and over again -- more troops, more kinetics, as they say -- it's not going -- not going to be successful, I don't think.

And it's going to, I think, delay something very important, a coming to grips with the reality in Iraq.

And let me -- one other point that I think we're in danger of. One of the key elements of national power is public support. The public is increasingly skeptical of the president. And when he seems to be indifferent to what the public says, let alone what we say in Congress, that could jeopardize the long-term support for a policy in the region that is necessary, a presence in the region that's necessary.

And I think the president is gambling tonight, recklessly, with that public support.