I know that the new change in strategy has only just begun, but so far it seems to be working out well. If things stay on a high note, like they are at the moment, how will this change in events alter the political strategy of the new majority?
2007-02-17 08:13:03 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
While it is too soon to tell if the "surge" strategy is going to work, this has to be the Democrat's worst nightmare.
Think of it! George Bush proven right!
And them left holding a symbolic "non-binding resolution" denouncing the strategy.
It would be tough to spin that one. Even with their most extremist supporters.
Keep a good thought!
2007-02-17 08:19:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Can't speak for the "True Anti-war" people but I am happy that our losses are decreased in Baghdad. We can only hope that it stays that way and spreads to other regions of Iraq. I hate to say this but I have memories of another era when all was calm and we could see"The light at the end of the tunnel". One month later the enemy hit every major base and every city in the country of South Vietnam. Be careful not to brag too much until the violence is truly curbed for good.
2007-02-17 08:46:21 · answer #2 · answered by supressdesires 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Success in Baghdad would be a crushing blow to both the insurgents and the far left.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
The effectiveness and success of this new strategy will only be known in the near future - it's always a good possibility that in the face of an enemy that will fight back (instead of some market place crowded with women and children) the terrorists are just lying low and hiding like the demented cowards they are.
2007-02-17 08:29:13 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Bush's plan in the beginning stages is already shown the desired affect. The Dems will develop a new stragedy to topple Wall Street, then blame Bush.
I also heard that most of the insurgent leaders left town.
2007-02-17 08:20:54 · answer #4 · answered by americanmalearlington 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know I hope that it would work but EVERY time we have done this and it has been quite a few there was a decreased followed by an INCREASE. You do realize we cannot win Rush and Sean are idiots, let’s look at history: "The Taliban regime faced international scrutiny and condemnation for its policies. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S., Saudi Arabia and the UAE cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban". For everyone we kill in Afghanistan or Iraqi he is replaced by two from
Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Iran to name but a few. Also for each one we have a future Bin Laden. I really enjoyed the two CIA employees who were jailed for standing up and admitting that that their original report to the White House did not mention WMDS, the Taliban (except to say Saddam was afraid of them) that when their report was cited as the reason to invaded they spoke up but were threaten with termination and jail. However they could no longer stand it and had to stand up and were promptly jailed. What can one say? God Bless You and Our Southern People.
2007-02-17 19:08:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i think the senate on whose gonna be kickin whose *** in policy now, so step aside and let US fix the problem you created
2007-02-17 08:34:58 · answer #6 · answered by Evil Man 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes - one day they might return to the pre - invasion condition
2007-02-17 08:42:49 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋