I always here conservative propaganda that the surge is working and liberals hate that. I was wondering just what is the surge supposed to do? I thought it's main purpose was to stabilize that region, but that's not happening, innocent people are dying every day. Is the surge just supposed to make a short term impact on Iraq? Obviously more soldiers means less violence, but to me the real mark on whether the surge works or not is what the long term effects will be, When the surge ends, as we know it must, will the violence increase again? If so, would you consider the surge a success? and if you do, would you support instituting the draft to really make things ok In Iraq, image what a surge of 1 million US troops could do.
2007-09-03 09:42:34 · 14 answers · asked by crushinator01 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
eldude... Who's idea was it? I think you're confused...
2007-09-03 09:56:18 · update #1
The surge is concentrated on Bhagdad and it is supposed to end violence in Bhagdad so the central government do political reconciliation. That government went on vacation and has fallen apart even more.
It's like the surge is a ladder that is being put up so that the fire department can climb the ladder and put out the burning building, however the fire department (the iraqi government) has gone on vacation and the house has burned down and the republicans are patting themselves on the back about how nice the ladder looks.
2007-09-03 09:47:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was to stabilize Baghad to create an environment where the Iraq government could reach out to other factions in Baghdad and begin a political reconcilation. Instead, the government's leaders refused to meet with the Sunnis, disaffected Shiites and other groups, the Parliament failed to pass the legislation we wanted and went on its August vacation, and civilian deaths in Iraq went up. US deaths are down from the prior months, but up from what they were a year ago.
It is conservative propaganda that the surge is working. As Vietnam heroes McCain and Jim Webb have said, the effect has been more like whack a mole.
2007-09-03 17:00:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
For quite a long time, The Bush has been asking for more troops, but didn't get it. Now, the Democrats got a great idea, because they control everything, the want a surge! Because with more troops in Iraq, means more security, greater number against the enemy. The surge is suppose to make Iraq a more secure place and help bring an end to the war.
Since, we haven't had enough troops there to do that before. It defeats the idea of sending in one guy at a time to die, vs sending in everybody at once and defeating the enemy.
More and more democrats are supporting the surge, and why shouldn't they? It was their idea.
2007-09-03 16:49:01 · answer #3 · answered by eldude 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't hate the surge but whether we "stabilize" the region or not it will still be chaotic when we leave. I hear no one else besides people who have always supported the war praising the surge and why wouldn't they? They always will praise the war even when it is a total disaster. I want to hear some critics of the war who have been skeptical of it say that there is progress.
2007-09-03 16:50:59 · answer #4 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Surge" is the replacement word du jour for "Escalation" - it also has a macho strut to it, which Bush and his cronies are hoping will sound like they're getting something out of throwing more bodies on the pyre. Short term or long term, the bodies will come home to Dover, DE, in cover of darkness---while Bush smirks at the podium, lies are told by loyal generals, and we sink deeper and deeper into the war that should never have been started in the first place...and which will expand exponentially into neighboring countries to such a degree that the draft will be absolutely necessary. Kiss your sons, brothers, nephews and daddies---and let your representatives/Senators in Washington know how you feel. Nothing, my friend, is going to "really make things OK in Iraq" no matter what kind of spin the Unspeakables lay out at press conferences.
2007-09-03 16:52:59 · answer #5 · answered by constantreader 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well the surge has been killing about 1500 of your brother insurgents a month. Personally, I think that you need to go help your brothers ASAP.
2007-09-03 18:56:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's about saving the Bush legacy and to hand off the inevitable U.S. retreat from Iraq, and the bloodbath that will ensue, to the next president
2007-09-03 16:54:41 · answer #7 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What is the surge supposed to do? Fill thousands of graves with young American soldiers who follow the orders of a corrupt regime in Washington.
2007-09-03 16:48:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
The surge puts overwhelming force against areas where insurgents are operating and therefore keeps those that survive, on the run. It disrupts insurgent operations, thereby reducing coalition casualties. It has been an effective tool.
2007-09-03 16:47:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It's an ineffective tactic simply because it displaces the insurgents and their current activity. It's like putting bubble gum on a tire with leaky air. It may work temporarily but in the end...well it won't.
2007-09-03 16:49:06 · answer #10 · answered by Glen B 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋