why are liiberals are against the surge?

Answer 1

Wow, another generalization with no evidence in the form of a reliable source. Looks like pure unadulterated BS doesn't it?

Answer 2

I don't know why liberals are against it, but I'm against it because it's putting unacceptable wear and tear on our already overstretched military.

I know that you Busheviks agree with the Gospel According to Rumsfeld that "Soldiers are fungible," and don't matter as individuals. But, the harsh reality is that they do require maintainance and do break down if that maintainance is neglected. Regular Formations are starting their 4th extended tours in 5 years, Guard and Reserve units are on their 3rd tours. Unless you are willing to go back to the Draft, something has got to give soon.

But, I think that may be the Republicans long term strategy. Destroy the Army, and then blame the incease in terrorism and the weakness of the military on the Dems.

The War in Iraq is just one battle in what is going to be a hundred year war against Militant Islam. Our soldiers had accomplished everything worthwhile by the end of 2003. Study what the Japs did to themselves at Gaudalcanal and tell me again how withdrawing to fight another day is "Defeatism."

Answer 3

Basically, it was believed that even if the surge worked, as soon as we leave, everything will break loose again. It was also thought that it might give the Iraqi government a chance to get it together, but instead a large percentage of the parliament resigned and the rest took a month long vacation. Now we are told the Shites have been trying to kill all of the Sunnis so they will be in complete power. They have wiped out entire neighborhoods.

While the U.S. effort is a valiant one, this country doesn't appear to be ready for a central government unless it is a dictator and all the opposition is dead no matter what we do.

Answer 4

I can't speak for liberals, but I assume that they would say that putting more effort into a poor decision doesn't make it a better decision.

For myself, as a conservative, I think it was too little too late. Had we had "enough" troops there to begin with, we might have been able to accomplish more. But the bigger problem has been our inability to define our role there. It keeps shifting. The reason we can never "WIN" has nothing to do with the ability of our troops. It has to do with the overall plan. We've never defined what constitutes a win.

Anyway, we should never have opened a new theatre of war until we had completed the first mission in Afghanistan. that was a big enough problem to chew on, and we've pretty much abandoned that difficult case. Instead, we should have done the surge there, pursued Osama, and left a solid civil society in place there. Iraq has never been anything more than a distraction.

Answer 5

I am against the surge because it kills American men and Women and will accomplish nothing.

No one in the Bush administration can provide a reason why the US military is in Iraq. Similarly they cannot provide a reason for the "surge."

If, as they say, they want to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can take command, why is the Iraqi government on vacation during the month of August?

If you, dear questioner, wish to see more of our great American kids die for nothing, surge on.

Answer 6

I am against the entire war in Iraq...so yes that would include any escalation or surge. We have no business Iraq and we never did.

I have believed that since 2002 when it suddenly became imperative that Iraq either do this or that or we were going to invade.

How about a surge in Afghanistan....please......

Answer 7

Because it won't work in the long run. Sure when you have more patrols there the violence will decrease a little. It hasn't decreased as much as anyone had hoped. When the surge goes away the areas they are protecting will fall apart then.

What do we do after the surge? Have another surge? then another, and another and another? This country can't afford it in money much less life.

This can't be won by force alone. For some reason force is the only option that interests the pro war people.

Answer 8

I'm not a liberal democrat, but sane people are against the surge because more of our troops are being killed and only the government of Iraq can bring about democracy if they want it.
Our troops have done all that was expected. They are not expendable for the greed of this or any other government.
If it was your child, father, mother,would you be so eager to see them killed?
What do you call success anyway? When Halliburton has all the billions they want. You are every uninformed or you could never stand up for what is going on in Iraq.
America has been disgraced by this administration.

Answer 9

Simple politics. They can't afford for anything that Bush does to appear to be successful if they want to win the White House in 2008.

Answer 10

It's more lives and money and chaos. Believe it or not, Bush doesn't have a clue what to do. So the buffoon will just toss away more kids' lives on this folly.