I suppose your real point here is that Sadr hasn't quit, that we will have to add more troops in order to stop him yet. And I agree that Sadr is a problem and that problem hasn't gone away for good. He may be sleeping until we leave or he may be plotting with Iran. We don't know. but whatever the case. He cannot win in Iraq as long as we remain.
2007-12-11 06:48:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by SFC_Ollie 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
umm a couple months after we pull our troops out and Iraq really does become a killing field. Right now it is mainly Iraqi forces that are doing patrols and fighting while the Americans are there as supervisors and support if necessary. Because of the success of the surge militarily, we are already pulling out our forces and bringing them home. the people who think it is a bloody civil war need to hear from the Iraqi CC groups and ask them how it is easy to spot terrorists that have moved into their neighborhoods. give ya a hint, its because they are foreign terrorists because those groups cant rely on using Iraqis as terrorists anymore.
2007-12-11 14:52:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by domination_in_08 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
It could resemble Hezballah. Let's hope that Sadr can convince his people that they are all iraqis, and joing the political process - be part of the solution. If they want the Americans out - get us out by showing us you know how to run your country without killing each other.
2007-12-11 14:45:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Next thursday at 10am. Actually, Sadr is beat. He is trying to save face, but he blew it big time, and lost some of his support in Harry Reid, and John Murtha. I think Moveon.org's ad about Gen. Patraus made the surge work better than expected, and Sadr is a failure because of it.
2007-12-11 14:51:41
·
answer #4
·
answered by mbush40 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
As soon as the U.S. government pretenses that this one is "working" are no longer credible.
Maybe six months.
We've been down this road before. I remember LBJ and Nixon's "escalations" in Vietnam. "Just a few more troops, a little more bombing... we're improving our situation... oops we lost another area... well, just a few more troops, a little more bombing... we're improving our situation... oops..."
And so on and so on and so on.
It'll go on until we admit we've lost, negotiate with the Iraqi Resistance ("insurgents") over how they are going to institute the new government, and we leave.
2007-12-11 14:49:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dont Call Me Dude 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
We probably won't even need one, given the successes of the current one.
This doesn't have much to do with our surge (at least not directly, as far as I know), but Britain's armed forces have even been told that their roles have been fulfilled (read: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!) and that their role will gradually be handed over to Iraqi security forces over the next few months.
2007-12-11 14:49:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Richard S 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
After the 4 million Iraqi's return to their homes and the violence starts again.
2007-12-11 14:48:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by MadLibs 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Its funny how so many right wingers who never heard of Al Sadar think that the Surge is working....
Little do they know he is pulling back, recruiting, and this is just the quite before the Storm.
2007-12-11 14:46:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
After the violence resurges. Right now the violence has moved north but they are re-arming and training for the upcoming violence. We can't leave and President Bush still wants to take on Iran!
2007-12-11 14:44:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
unlikely, but, were it to occur, we will find the "peace" purchased with American blood and treasure was not used to consolidate an Iraqi government. rather, it was used to fine tune and build up separate factions.
2007-12-11 14:50:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by bilez1 4
·
0⤊
0⤋