Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Jun 26, 2007.
He will be branded as a renegade or traitor, or they will find out he masturbated in the 6th grade and labeled a pervert.
Well he's wrong and truly doesn't understand what the point of the surge is. This is being done because we have to draw down in the spring of 2008. We have no other choice in the matter. Part of the reason this strategy is being undertaken is to bridge the transition to Iraqi Security forces. While doing so, we're trying to weed out, eliminate, and weaken AQ and insurgent groups. Anyone who thought this was going to be an instant fix truly doesn't understand what is being done.
he's wrong? so it's working?
"In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved," Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. "Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term."
He's wrong in the sense that the surge is designed, in part, to transition security ops over the Iraqi units so we can draw down come early 2008 (maybe even late 2007). This has been in the plans for a couple of years now. The surge is doing what it is generally designed to do. If you look in the right places, you'll find front line accounts of ISF progress. My buddy in Taji, and a bunch of the milblogs talk about how many casualties the Iraqi units are taking, and how the news media never mentions that. What it illustrates is their commitment. They are performing, which is what we need to happen to get out of there. A couple of years ago they could not have attempted what they are doing now.
You can't say for certain since it just started a week ago, jumping the gun on the surge a bit.
People are worried about getting re-elected. Regardless of what happens, we're drawing down in early 2008 at the latest.
Separate names with a comma.