You (like many in the MSM) don't seem to understand the war in Iraq and what was and wasn't happening (and in what time frames). There were more troops in Iraq (numerous times) that equaled larger numbers than with what we put back in during the so called "surge" (prior to the surge). The surge came about because of the success we were having (fighting for, that is how you have to win aspects of wars) in 05/06.
SecDef Rumsfeld was key in allowing us to have the aggressive and non-stop Op tempos that we did throughout 05/06. Politics (and SecDef Rumsfeld and CinC GWB doing what was best for our men on the ground) is why after 06, he was replaced. No SecDef could be able to do his job if constantly before Congressional committees (as the DEM leadership promised, once they won in 06).
The reality is AQ went 'all in' in Iraq in 04. Zarqawi was one hell of a tactical commander. As AQs #1 in Iraq he brought chaos. But at the end of the day because of the leadership of GWB and Rumsfeld a dirty little secret came about, that being it was AQ who could not fight an effective multi-front war, not us. We most certainly could and did. Routing AQ out of Iraq (Zarqawi included) not too mention in a half dozen other places around the globe.
RE “You (like many in the MSM) don’t seem to understand ....The surge came about because of the success we were having.. “
Me, FNC, many conseratives in media, and most people (99%) don’t understand your point. Even many conservative radio talk show hosts pointed my point out when Rumsfield was let go, after the election. They asked, why this wasnt done sooner before election, and answered political must be it.
It wont sell and when you loose the PR war, you loose the war. And GWB lost almost everyone on Iraq(but not the surge) . So now we have Obama/Pelosi. If they reverse the progress, all the time and lives were for nothing. But maybe they wont.