I have now heard so many people say that the surge has been a success, but I can't see it. It is clear that the surge has drastically reduced violence in Iraq, but does that equal success? If we took those troops out now, would the violence levels stay down? To me the surge was meant to be a facilitator, to bring about more substantial change in a climate of relative safety. But that doesn't seem to have happened.


So my question is to all the conservatives on this forum. I say this as some one who thinks it is important that we do everything we can to make Iraq work, but I don't believe you have to think it IS working to believe that it is important that it works. The surge has been a success militarily, but how has it helped us achieve our ultimate political goals in the region?

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


This is teeko responding to me telling him hitler is spelled with 1 T not 2. This has to be one of the weirdest, and most nonsensical things ever posted here.

Obama finally decided to go. I think that says a great deal about the surge.

__________________
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
-Thomas Jefferson

We've heard lots of talk from conservatives about "success" and "victory" in Iraq, but it's never been clear what they mean when they bandy about these words.

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The End of an Error.

And it never will be. As long as they keep moving the goalposts around, they can continue to occupy Iraq and make zillions more off of "government contracts."

Please, offer substantial posts in here. I want some one to answer this question, in detail. I have asked this question in other threads on multiple occasion, and have never received an answer.

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


This is teeko responding to me telling him hitler is spelled with 1 T not 2. This has to be one of the weirdest, and most nonsensical things ever posted here.

The US must have stability in Iraq (espically in Baghdad) before major political goals can be reached. They go hand and hand.

Being a OIF vet that operated out of Baghdad, thats how I see it at least

But in order for the "Surge" to have WORKED, then there must BE stability in Baghdad.

Right? I mean, if it WORKED and all...

__________________

McCAIN = BUSH

Vote Accordingly

That is totally substantial. The question was asked how one could tell if the surge had worked. I offered the example of Obama now feeling safe enough to go.

__________________
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
-Thomas Jefferson

The "surge" has succeeded in reducing the level of violence in Iraq. It will most likely continue to contribute to the reduction in violence as long as we are willing to pay for maintaining the number of troops at their current levels.

__________________
I feel sorry for people who can only see black and white in a full color world.

In order for that to be "substantial," you would first have to establish proof that he DIDN'T feel safe going BEFORE!

See? For ONE thing to be true, then the OTHER has to be true as well.

__________________

McCAIN = BUSH

Vote Accordingly