He says we cannot sustain a surge past next spring, and will have to start drawing down troops. Do you believe him? If so, is this a 'timeline'? One based on our capacity, instead of Iraqi benchmarks? Has this been a good strategy? And remember, if we know we cannot sustain, the terrorists will know this is well..except this time they will know we are leaving because we are tapped out, and not because the Iraqi gov't failed to reach benchmarks...what will be the implications?
2007-08-20 05:45:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
vinny, it was hard to find your answer behind your hatred for half of america, but I think I found it...you agree with him. And so did most dems, before he was put in charge. And so did most of the generals who he replaced.
2007-08-20 05:50:37 · update #1
jungle joe, why would they do that? he is only reaffirming what we already knew. Only this time we can leave in shame, with nothing accomplished, because Bush didn't want to hold the Iraqis responsible for anything.
2007-08-20 05:52:11 · update #2
The surge was a futile strategy to start with--and I suspect petraeus knew it months ago--he's not an idiot. It doesn't matter if we "sustain it" or not. And the terrorists don't much care. Remember--their organization, resources, and leadership is safe in Pakistan where Bush continutes to give them sanctuary.
The few low level terrorists in Iraq were sent there from al-Qaida's bases in Pakistan to cause trouble and to keep the issues confused--which suits bush just fine. Without that, he'd have a lot more trouble keeping the truth from becoming obvious--that this is not a war about "terrorism" or "freeing Iraq." Teh war is one of resistance--by Iraqis fighting a foreign invader to get their country back, and to overthrow the puppet regime Bush installed to oppress them.
2007-08-20 05:58:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I believe him, although the other side of that is that our troop levels are low, and the draft isn't off the table yet. It's a politically unpopular idea, but it may become necessary if something else happens- we're stretched to the max right now.
2007-08-20 12:52:56 · answer #2 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Even if I did believe Petraeus (I don't), it is still too little, too late.
Success is not even a possibility at this point unless one defines it as thousands dead, world-wide anti-American sentiment,an astounding National debt and Al Qaeda alive and prospering in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2007-08-20 12:58:52 · answer #3 · answered by alessa_sunderland 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes I do believe him... I've said from the start that I will trust Petraeus' evaluation of the situation and weigh it heavily with my decision making for Iraq.
2007-08-20 12:48:33 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I already said we will be out beginning next summer. I will go get the link. BRB. Here it is:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar7VThZYIaUkXxGMOqtvqVnty6IX?qid=20070813091840AAhH4EH&show=7#profile-info-Adf1VF1Laa
2007-08-20 12:52:45 · answer #5 · answered by libsticker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. We can extend tours and force the guard over there with shorter home time. The surge hasn't gone as well as hoped, we need to stick with it for our President Bush's legacy.
2007-08-20 12:49:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Trust me, the Dems have already guaranteed that the terrorists know 'weve lost' because they're on television every other minutes saying so, with Harry Reids blessing may I add.
Petraeus has no reason to lie because he gains NOTHING from telling a lie.
.
2007-08-20 12:48:55 · answer #7 · answered by vinny_says_relax 7 · 3⤊ 7⤋
Dems voted to approve him.
So they should shortly be calling him a liar or defaming him.
2007-08-20 12:50:30 · answer #8 · answered by junglejoe 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋