Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
I have remained silent on the topic of a "surge" of troops for the simple reason that I haven't the faintest clue whether it would accomplish anything or not. I do view with extreme suspicion such actions emanating from the planning rooms in D.C. as political gestures rather than military operations. We don't know what the generals really asked for or what they are prepared to do with additional troops; what we read in the media is only speculation from persons who, even with the highest qualifications, have only imperfect data.

I agree with VDH that it would be nice to have some sort of objective delineated by which to measure this activity. It would be even better to have that a bipartisan objective, but that would risk the Dems giving up a potential club with which to bash the administration for the piddling consideration of national security. They have not proven mature or broad-minded enough as yet to do so and the present treacly Pelosi coronation orgy leaves us no indication that they ever will.

10 posted on 01/05/2007 2:23:04 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Billthedrill
"as political gestures rather than military operations"

Tin Foil thought: What if the plan for a surge is really a political bait and switch? Bush proposes a surge, knowing the Dems will reject it.

Then when Iraq falls apart completely we can blame the Dems for forcing us to "cut and run" instead of doing what was needed to win?
14 posted on 01/05/2007 10:52:41 PM PST by garjog (Used to be liberals were just people to disagree with. Now they are a threat to our existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson