Why would liberals delcare defeat with the surge before it was fully implemented?

Question

It has been a few weeks since we have had full force. Do our soldiers deserve at least a few months to win this? Why should we trust democrats to protect us when they call our surge a failure before we even have a chance to do it?

There are 2 Republicans who are acting up. Warner of Va, who has not been a conservative for years and will be primaried or give the seat to democrats and Lugar, who I have no idea what happened to him.

Keyboard generals amuse me. We have Patraeus there and he is in charge. I believe him because that is his job. If he says we need X, it is on his head.

Some of you liberals here show your arrogance with no first hand knowledge of the situation. Al Qaeda thanks you.

We went in to enforce the 17 UN resolutions that no one would. Saddam admitted he had WMDs (whether he actually did or not is not relevant). After 9-11, we could not risk him getting them and using them. We went in because he did not keep his part of the cease fire after the Gulf War.

Answer 1

Because they stand to gain politically if Iraq is a total loss. There is the bottom line, short term political gain, regardless of the global consequences, regardless of the long term consequences for the US.

Answer 2

They've had four years to "win" this. And the continued increase in American troop presence has only increased the violence in the country.

You're talking as if a 5% increase since March in troop levels is going to make any difference whatsoever. During the same period, 40% of Iraqi defense forces have fallen below the standard for being self-supporting, and every military estimate shows that Iraqi forces are becoming more (not less) dependent on US aid the longer things continue.

Waiting another month or two months is not going to change anything that the past 50 months hasn't changed. And the Iraq govt is not making any progress on the political front, which is entirely independent of the number of troops we send over.

So, exactly what do you think will be accomplished in the next 2 months that couldn't have been done over the past 4+ years?

But I'll make you a bet, if you think that 2 or 4 or 6 months will make all the difference. If the US can "win" by December, given that the Surge is now finally fully staffed, then we can stay there as long as you want. If the US doesn't "win" by December, then you support the troops all coming home by April. Deal?

Answer 3

Because even with more troops we will still not do what it takes to win this fiasco, we are just giving them more targets. We are playing into the insurgents hands, they will fade into the landscape by day, plant their I.E.Ds at night then watch the fireworks. They know they cannot win a war of attrition, the Vietnamese taught them that. We were spending 12 billion a month before the surge, now its going to be 25-30 billion BILLION with a "B" a month, they are going to bankrupt us with smoke and mirrors while we don't get close to the Al Quieda masterminds tucked away in Pakistan and Afghanistan.It doesn't add up whack job. 3612 American dead so far and just getting started with the surge.

Answer 4

And the whole point of the surge was to “buy space” for the Iraqis to work out some political solutions to some of the more daunting problems facing the new and weak Iraqi government. Since this idea of a surge was announced (over the objections of a number of American military leaders) and implemented, the political situation in Iraq has certainly not improved and may have actually deteriorated. I hope it works. But so far there is no evidence of that.

Answer 5

Tell me again what are we doing there in the first place? WMD? That's not it. Catching Bin Laden? Wrong place. Saddam supporting terrorists? Nope. Yellowcake uranium to build a big bomb? You wish...

If you can't answer the first question, how do you suppose we deduce what winning is supposed to entail? Iraqis stop fighting, go on the street and hug each other? Wouldn't it be true that "surge" is a bit unappropriate for that mighty goal.

Or maybe winning means to rebuit relationships with the world, discredit the common belief in muslem world that we are out on a crusade to destroy Islam? Maybe winning is to show the world that we are better than terrorists and they are not the answer, so muslems would hang them themselves instead of standing on the sidelines or supporting them?

Answer 6

Before it was implemented? Its been implemented for almost 5 years. Mission Accomplished remember? We are talking years here not months. What is two more months going to do that the last four years hasn't? How long does it take for reality to sink in? Saddam is gone, WMDs verified gone, mission accomplished, game over. Now can we get back to the guy that attacked us in the first place? Remember him? How unpatriotic is it to not repay the favor to this guy. Almost 3000 perished on 9/11 and we let the guy walk? Iraq is over move the forces to Afghanistan.

Answer 7

First off, the 'liberal' strawman hasn't said anything except the word put in this mythical critters mouth by the right wing talk show bozos. Second, the occupation of Iraq is lost no matter how many people you put there. They don't want a single country...they want it divided into as many parts as there are seperate factions...and none of them want the US there. What a mess, and 2/3 of the american public want us out anyway...listen to the people...for a change...it can't hurt!

Answer 8

if you actually keep up with reality, they have until september 2007, until withdrawls even start, proceeding throughout april 2008.
how many months until september??
considering Bush was told from the beginning he needs to send more troops, oh about 5 years ago, and he didn't think we needed them then.

answer this question:
is America more secure with a good portion of our fighting forces here in America, or several weeks away, should America be attacked?

Answer 9

You make it sound like it would be some big favor to the troops to leave them there longer, like that's there special wish or something. The surge means instead of being outnumbered 100-to-1 they will only be outnumbered 99-to-1. Big diff!

Answer 10

Not sure where you are getting your information but it seems to me that you are like a lot of consevatives on this offering your opinions as facts. Where are any facts you have to sunstantiate what your saying if you have none than your offering nothing more than hot air. With global warming we do not need it.