Do you consider 21,000 more troops a "surge"?

Question

Regardless of where you stand on the Iraq war, do you think 21,000 more troops constitutes the term "surge". I was thinking at least 75,000 if not 100,000. I supported the idea of going in and killing Saddam now let's get out and let Iraqis fight for Iraq's future. If Bush wanted a "surge" then he should of asked for 75k or more arriving overnight ready for killing anyone who made a move. That's how you end a stalemate war!!!

Answer 1

I think 20,000 troops is a drop in the bucket.

Okay, we all know that increasing troops will increase violence. But instead of putting in at least 75,000 troops to deal with the violence that will undoubtedly happen, we only send in 20,000. It's ridiculous. If we were going to send in a surge of troops we should have sent in enough to squash the subsequent violence. Instead we created more targets, nothing more nothing less.

Just for reference:

The Mahdi army has 60,000 armed militants. But we only send over 20,000 of our guys, and expect to capture Bagdhad.

I thought the idea of a surge was flawed from the testimony I heard, but to only surge with 20,000 is just plain stupid.

(Oh and liberals hate the term surge because we think it misleads the American public into thinking that the increase in troops will be short term. The truth is it will be about 18 months. Americans polled prefer a "surge" over "escalation." The truth is this is escalation.)

Answer 2

I strongly suspect that a surge would indicate a force sufficient to end this war, once and for all, with total and unmistakable victory against the Islamic radicals.
It's apparent we need more troops on the ground - presently, we can't even bring stability to a city, let alone a country.

I believe that 21,000 more troops, unfortunately, is a political compromise and not a military decision.

We might have even seen a real surge if GWBush wasn't fighting two fronts - the Islamic terrorists in Iraq and the far left, pacifist nuts on the home front.

Answer 3

Typically, I would say no. But in the Iraq case I would have to say yes, it's a surge.

Given that we already have so many troops on the ground, and soldiers in constant tour rotation, adding 20,000 more is certainly a surge.

I'm all for stepping up tactics, and going door to door to hunt down extremist. I'm all for letting the Iraqis conduct these operations with American troop integration. But I think if we're adding more troops, we had better damn well know what we're doing is going to work.

America is tired of the loss of life in Iraq, and weary of the military being stretched thin.

Answer 4

that's because that is the term the liberal media is portraying. If you listen to Secretary Rice you would hear that it is an augmentation of Iraqi troops. there will be a break up of 9 provinces in Baghdad where 1 battalion will merge with an Iraqi force in each province. its a teach and learn while working. we dont have the people to train like a classroom job so we must teach on the go...

Answer 5

I call it a surge in that most of the 20,000 will be concentrated in a relatively small area in Southern Baghdad, not scattered all over a desert the size of Texas.

Answer 6

i believe in the war and i say half a million, of crap i forget Clinton cut the military in half during the 90's, that's why were in the position we're in in Iraq

Answer 7

Yes but if more are needed I think he will send them.

Answer 8

It's more like throwing a bone to a pack of hungry wolves.

Answer 9

I consider the whole plan absurd and doomed to failure. As for Saddam, he never hurt me! Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, right?

Answer 10

I see what you mean.