Bush was right the surge has worked hasnt it?

Question

Well i am no George Bush fan but even the dems have to give the man credit for sticking to his guns and taking care of the dirty work that none of them would have ever had the balls to do. They voted for the war and had no ideal what war meant isnt that the way you see it?

Answer 1

In some ways yes, it worked. You are also correct to say that Democrats voted for the war and also the patriot bill which they did not read (stupids?). The biggest issue is this administration has not come up with a solid solution to rebuild Iraq, the reason why our troops are still there. But then again I have to agree with you he did it, we have war in Iraq and topple the regime of Saddam Hussein which is the primary purpose of the war, then what, it is still empty....

Answer 2

Yes, the surge has worked for now. As soon as there is a political solution to the mess in Iraq maybe we can say we won? I really haven't seen any clear definition of win yet. Is there a clear plan? Maybe what we just did was something we should have done years ago but without a clear plan we didn't make it happen. That, of course, caused the deaths of many more people.

Answer 3

Bringing more cops into any high crime area will reduce the crime level. The same goes for more security forces in an area of civil strife. There was never any doubt that higher troop levels would bring about a better level of peace in Iraq.
Let's hope we can maintain this long enough for the Iraqis to establish their own level of law and order. These people just need a period of time for their lives to reach a level of normalcy. Once the general population feels as though they have control over their own circumstances, they are more likely to take the matter of their own security into their own hands.
This troop level surge should have been done years ago.

Answer 4

No I don't see it that way at all....The man went into war blind and thought it would be over in like a month, year ..whatever....Do you not remember his big entrance on that one air craft carrier/destroyer...I don't remember the name...But he was basically declaring victory....And what...WE ARE STILL IN THE F**KING WAR......The man didn't have a back up plan...He had to do something or risk being impeached for his lies...Of course he had to stay with the war....or it would have meant he would have had to admit his mistakes.....We should have never went to war with Iraq....All the advisers were telling Bush if you take out Saddam, you are going to create a country of such chaos and ruin that it may never be controlled....But he didn't care...because he is a "war president" .... and the "decider"....

Answer 5

Even if you don't like his politics, you have to respect President Bush for sticking by what he says. It's funny how so many politicians changed their stance on the war when it fell out of popularity with the general public (or was it just the media). I'd rather have a leader that sticks by what he says, than one who's words change with every wind of popular opinion.

Who was it again that said Saddam/Iraq had WMDs, and was a threat? Oh yeah, it was:

Bill Clinton
Madeline Albright
Sandy Berger
Nancy Pelosi
Al Gore
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
...

If you don't believe me, check out the link in the Sources section.

Regards

Answer 6

Yes, the level of violence is down so the surge has done it's job. I always have believed that our biggest problem has been that we sent more than enough troops to topple Hussein's government, but no where near enough to control the country until it could emerge as an independantly governed nation. Heck, there were millions of soldiers occupying Germany at the end of WW2

Answer 7

The surge is working, I guess.

Lets review:

1. Foreign service officers have commented that going to Iraq was tantamount to a death sentence
2. Was not 2007 the worse year in violence in Iraq
3. Our own people are saying that they are not celebrating yet
4. Violence is down now, will it stay that way.
5. As I said before, when the President stops make surprise visits to Iraq, then I will believe that things are working out.

Answer 8

Yes, you're right.

The surge has brought out a lot of positive results.

But don't expect the liberal Dems to point out that success.

Because they're working around the clock to undermine and ruin whatever they can of George Bush's legacy.

Even if it compromises our troops, the liberal Dems will continue to do whatever they can to ruin George Bush even more.

It shows you how un-American the liberal Dems are.

Answer 9

Do you expect Bush to get any credit? Any at all? All the naysayers look a bit foolish now.

But, they are currently reducing the military force so you may see some spike up in violence. There is progress but they are a long way from calling it a success.

Answer 10

It has worked in the limited areas where we saturated US troops. Baghdad by all reports is still a very dangerous place to be plus there is still, after 5 years, very limited electricity, sewer, fresh water supplies. And all of this 'progress' at a cost of a mere $1.2 trillion and rising. Maybe you relish the thought of keeping 175,000 US troops in Iraq and spending another $1 trillion plus for another 5 years just to have Bush attempt to prove his legacy valid? Arrogance, egotism, and stubbornness are not a measure of anyones 'balls', it is an indication of his stupidity.