Why is it some of the anti-war politicians are now saying the surge is working?

Question

The change in mood perceived by Democratic lawmakers comes as one of Congress’ most vocal war critics, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), returned from a trip to Iraq and told reporters Thursday that “the surge is working”.

Should be pretty interesting when troops start returning just prior to the 2008 election with Republican candidates saying "We supported the troops COMPLETELY" and Democratic candidates mumbling "we supported the troops but not their mission."

GoGo Girls below:
Bingo, some of the Democrats will say they changed their mind about the war.
I have always maintained that Immigration will be the number one issue, followed by the economy. The war will off in the horizon.

Yellowbeard below:
Huh? Murtha and the House Majority Leader just returned from Iraq and told reporters what I just mentioned above. Why do you say no one is saying anything? Many of the congressional democrats are also reporting that their consitutents are not even bring up the war anymore. Several have stated that in two weeks not a single question was asked about the war and most questions were in regard to immigration.

Snazel below:
You make some valid points. In my opinion we should have been there with overwhelming force and stopped the insurgency in its tracks. Unfortunately we will probably have to maintain troops in Iraq for the next 30 years.

Steven C below:
Where are you getting your numbers from? We don't even have half that number of troops there. Counting the surge troops, there are about 160,000 US Service Members in Iraq.

Answer 1

You watch the spin start turning. They will say "see, we did the right thing". LOL.....it will be pathetic and their constituents will eat it up.

Answer 2

My personal review on the surge is mixed. While there is success in some areas, other areas there are not, even Petraeus' on report reflects that.

One important question is why it took so long to realize a surge was necessary, and most importantly, why was an adequate number of troops were not on the ground shortly after the invasion?

There are many high-ranking military officers and military pundits who suggest strongly that had we a larger force at the start of the invasion, much of the insurgency would have been curbed.

I do not think it is a coincidence that removing Rumsfeld from the administration, eventually led to greater success on the ground.

Having said that, the democrats have been spineless on the Iraq war since it started. Many of them voted for it, then condemned it when Rumsfeld's strategy backfired, then defended the MoveOn.Org attack ad on Petraeus, and now claim the surge is "working".

Having said that, the Republican leadership has much to answer for the mismanagement of our troops. We did not give our men and women the right numbers, deployment and equipment to do their job. Only now are we making amends, and die-hard Republicans are patting themselves on the back for it.

We can't send our men and women to war without a legitimate plan to win ever again, and the initial Iraqi invasion plan was poorly conceived. Only the bravery and work ethic of our troops gave us the time, and opportunity to finally realize a surge was necessary.

I applaud the troops, I condemn the initial plan of invasion. And I particularly condemn politicians who change their minds on this invasion with each passing season.

Answer 3

Like Murtha?
Its so obvious that we are now winning. Today I heard that the government of Iraq is having a hard time absorbing all the the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees RETURNING to Iraq.......
Of course I heard this on TALK RADIO, the radical news medium ruined by the Cons....
Sounds like the Iraqis think its just about over too! God bless our troops!

Answer 4

It is working, in Baghdad at least. The sectarian violence is down about 80%, the overall violence is down 76%. People are slowly beginning to go home again. The number of IED's going off has dropped dramatically as well. Hopefully things will continue to improve. This has all been ocurring over the past 3-4 months.

If the POLITICAL end would get going and the President of Iraq and his bunch would get off their rumps and get their end done, things would be even better.

Answer 5

Joe Lieberman has been warning Democrats, that just running and hoping for a defeat in Iraq as the campaign platform is rapidly eroding. Murtha has lost so much credibility that he see's if he does not get back to center his political career is over.

Watch now over the next year how the left will look like John Kerry all over again....

Answer 6

what else did Murtha say?

why do conservatives cry about taking Rush out of context when they take everyone else out of context constantly?

also, maybe you should look at some of the troop opinion polls that have been done...

EDIT: and why don't Republicans care that Osama is still out there? do you guys even remember his name... as you said the war won't be an issue?

will you consider Osama an issue if he attacks again? have you been paying attention to what he's been doing and his activity increases?

Answer 7

The surprising thing is that many of them still aren't.

Nancy Pelosi was really angry at Murtha for suggesting what the rest of us have known since January when Al Sadr and Al Qaida both left Baghdad just at the threat of a surge.

Answer 8

what will be interesting is the politically motivated move of withdrawing a number of troops just at the right time before the elections,proving once again that the president is playing games with the lives of Americans just to advance his agenda..nobody has ever said that they dont support the troops ..you dumb azz

Answer 9

no one is saying the surge is working. not even the US military. Violence has slipped to 2005 levels and that was also a violent year for the war. i wouldn't tout the surge when this year has been the most violent year for the war and America has lost more troops than any year. insurgants are finding less people to kill because ethnic cleansing is almost complete in many areas in iraq.

Answer 10

Support for the troops in my mind means support for them as people. "We supported their mission -- but provided them with inadequate supplies, extended their tours indefinitely, and gave inadequate medical care when they returned" doesn't sound like much of a rallying cry.

The answer to your supposed question, however, about why "anti-surge" politicians may now be saying that the surge is working, is that some politicians (including some Democrats) are capable of changing their opinions over time in response to factual data and evidence of real world events. Other politicians (including "strong" leaders like our current President) never let facts get in the way when forming their opinions and policies.

One question that you might ask yourself is what the surge may be working to do. To make Baghdad less of a free-kill zone? That's a good thing for sure. Now tell me how that helps to solve the problems between the Kurds and the Turks, addresses the Iranian situation, makes up for a war based on false pretenses, helps clean up corruption perpetrated in Iraq vboth against and by Americans, does anything to make us safer from terrorism here in the homeland, etc. etc. etc.

Answer 11

They are saying it because the surge is working much to their dismay. As far as the medical treatment they are getting, as long as I can remember the VA hospitals were not the place to go to get the best of care. That is an example of health care ran by a bureaucracy.