Finally! A liberal who understands the ramifications of cutting and running. Congratulations!
We're still in Germany, still in Japan, Still in Korea. We'll be here for a long time. Get over it. The only thing we need to do differently is figure out a way to stop sending the same guys back over and over again.
Hey, found a bit of trivia that I thought you'd appreciate. Did you know that there has been a monthly average of 160,000 US troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths?
That gives a monthly firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.
That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq.
2007-08-07 03:39:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by The emperor has no clothes 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think since you started off this question with, "Bush supporters," you already have your mind made up, but here are some observations of mine.
The surge is not just done in general. There are plans behind it. There are targets and objectives. Depending on the increase in violence following the surge, it could just mean troops within the country are moved as the terrorist kind of have water balloon effect, when you push in one place, they move to the place of least resistance. This does not mean they are not hurt though. When they have to do this, they lose contacts, organization, supplies, supply sources and other things giving the Iraqi government, Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police time to take control of things.
If another surge is needed, it will depend on the situation. More then likely, a terrorist spike in attacks again will be centered in one area and shifting of troops will generally be all that is needed.
Also, plans to end the surge is already underway. The next announced troop rotation was already over 10,000 less then troops they are replacing. That trend will continue until the normal operational strength is reached.
Hypofocus, I did not intend to paint a happy picture. I just tried to explain the dynamics of the surge. Following the surge, the forces that remain in country, the Iraqi Army, Government and Police need to capitalize on the disruption of the terrorists. This type of thing has been done on smaller scales within Iraq, and it worked. Now it is being tried on a larger scale. Your questions is one big, what if. In a "what if" question, there is no solid answer. If it was not an "if," it would be a fact. A lot of things could happen. As I said, more then likely it will not take additional troops, but moving the troops around within the country. Another surge is always possible in a "what if" scenario. I dont see Bush doing another one though because of political reasons.
How long it should take? The correct answer should be until its fixed, but American wont accept that answer. It took years to rebuild Japan, and they were not shooting at us. There will not be an answer to that question until it is over.
2007-08-07 10:50:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by mnbvcxz52773 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm a soldier, I'm not a politician. I personally don't care :P
2007-08-07 10:31:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋