2007-01-06 00:55:46 · 7 answers · asked by enlistees 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The bigger question is where will they get all the troops from?
2007-01-06 00:57:31 · answer #1 · answered by tumbleweed1954 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it's dishonest on it's face. A surge implies a fast movement when in fact this so called surge is 18 months. Just more time to drag our feet while a few make lots more money......it's always about the money
2007-01-06 09:01:58 · answer #2 · answered by anya_mystica 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was one of the recommendations provided to Bush on how to solve Iraq. Since the other options involved pulling out early he was not interested. I give this a 50 / 50 chance of working in the long run.
2007-01-06 08:58:46 · answer #3 · answered by returnofbuckwheat 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I thought he was one of the ones pushing for a surge, but wanted to make sure it would be 'big enough'?
2007-01-06 08:59:14 · answer #4 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The administration has few viable options left and that means throw people at the problem.
2007-01-06 09:08:19 · answer #5 · answered by harrisnish 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Sen. Biden had it right - Bush is kicking the can down the road, so the next president will have to be the one who "loses" in Iraq. That is why.
2007-01-06 08:57:46 · answer #6 · answered by ash 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
golly gomer, i dunno...maybe it has something to do with defeating the enemy.
2007-01-06 08:57:36 · answer #7 · answered by Uno 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋