Is the surge working?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
As I remember it, the goal of the surge was to send additional troops into Iraq so that we could reduce the violence in Iraq and start bringing the troops home.

The idea was that we would bump up the number of troops then by doing that we could bring more home later... This never seemed reasonable to me, but I was no General... or president.

Bush himself said, "If we increase our support at this critical moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin comming home."

When Bush said this there were about 130,000 troops in Iraq. The proposal was to add 20,000 troops.

Most analysists sold the surge as a program that would last 6 to 8 months.

They ended sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq. So at the hight there were about 160,000 troops. Now... The surge has beein going on about 12 months. There are about 150,000 troops in Iraq, with official plans to reduce the number to 130,000 by July.

General Petareus is now promoting a new plan in troop numbers called "Pause" a plan that would end the troop reduction at the current level for an undetermined period...

So we are back to the 130,000 troops we started with a year ago...

Sooo, how did the Surge relate to troop reduction??


* I borrowed heavily from Defining Victory Downward by Michael Kinsley for this post.
 
Surging more troops into iraq, and staying there for years on end is a peacekeeping mission. It's not war, nor is it escalating the war.






(sarcasm)
 
Cypress said:
Surging more troops into iraq, and staying there for years on end is a peacekeeping mission. It's not war, nor is it escalating the war.






(sarcasm)
Click to expand...


Yeah and the five-fold increase in airstrikes in 2007 wasn't an escalation of the war either. They were dropping peace bombs and shooting lilies.
 
Jarod said:
So why do people fall for this shit!
Click to expand...

Most people don't. I think most polls show americans aren't buying the surge shit.

As for the ones who profess to support it, the more educated ones know what the real truth is. It was never to "fix" the problem of iraq. It was to buy bush time, so he could pass it off to the next president. So, republicans ego's wouldn't be bruised by having to withdraw from iraq during Bush's term.
 
leaningright said:
Expound on "invented" please.
Click to expand...

Conditioned = Invented.

We've been conditioned by Hollywood, fake lessons versions of history, and a belief in American exceptionalism. Often incapable of recognizing truth stuck right in our face.

Cognitive dissonance reigns supreme in America.
 
bac is a moron, as evidenced by his two statements above.
You may be conditioned, but you aren't as smart as the rest of us.
 
The idea was to give the government time to pass the needed legislation and to train enough troops for us to begin leaving. The first Marines have actually left without immediate replacements after turning over a region to the local troops....
 
Damocles said:
The idea was to give the government time to pass the needed legislation and to train enough troops for us to begin leaving. The first Marines have actually left without immediate replacements after turning over a region to the local troops....
Click to expand...

So you belive its working, because one year later the level is back to where it was?
 
Jarod said:
So you belive its working, because one year later the level is back to where it was?
Click to expand...
Not really. There is progression from a year ago. It is unrealistic to pretend that the laws they recently passed and regions being turned over to local control is the exact same place it was a year ago.

A year ago whole areas of Baghdad were ghost towns because people left for safer areas, this no longer is the case.

I wouldn't say it is "working" so much as to say there is some progress finally after many years of dismal failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top