I am curious about people's view of the Iraq war v. the surge

[Peter]

For the most part, it seems that people typically fall one way or the other on this issue.

 

Typically, if people were for the war from the beginning, they are for the surge.

 

People who were against the war are also against the surge for the most part.

 

I was vehemently against the war from the time W and his administration started beating the war drums against Iraq. Yet, I am in favor of the surge. As much as I was against the war, I do believe that we have a responsibility to create some stability. We opened up Pandora's box and have, in my view, created a more dangerous situation for the US. than existed in the days of the no fly zone.

 

I was curious whether there are any other people on this board who are in favor of the surge, but were against the war.

[Chef Jim]

For the most part, it seems that people typically fall one way or the other on this issue.

 

Typically, if people were for the war from the beginning, they are for the surge.

 

People who were against the war are also against the surge for the most part.

 

I was vehemently against the war from the time W and his administration started beating the war drums against Iraq. Yet, I am in favor of the surge. As much as I was against the war, I do believe that we have a responsibility to create some stability. We opened up Pandora's box and have, in my view, created a more dangerous situation for the US. than existed in the days of the no fly zone.

 

I was curious whether there are any other people on this board who are in favor of the surge, but were against the war.

 

I'm not there and I trust no one's report of it so I can't say either way.

[Peter]

I'm not there and I trust no one's report of it so I can't say either way.

 

I was asking about people's opinion. Right or wrong, people have opinions -- as reflected on this board every day.

[D_House]

For the most part, it seems that people typically fall one way or the other on this issue.

 

Typically, if people were for the war from the beginning, they are for the surge.

 

People who were against the war are also against the surge for the most part.

 

I was vehemently against the war from the time W and his administration started beating the war drums against Iraq. Yet, I am in favor of the surge. As much as I was against the war, I do believe that we have a responsibility to create some stability. We opened up Pandora's box and have, in my view, created a more dangerous situation for the US. than existed in the days of the no fly zone.

 

I was curious whether there are any other people on this board who are in favor of the surge, but were against the war.

I'm with you. Clearly something needed to change. Largely due to miscalculations and poor planning, the occupation was not going well. There were those (McCain being among them) that from the start were saying what many in the military were saying: that more boots were needed on the ground.

 

I was opposed to the war from the beginning, but agreed with McCain that a surge in military presence would be a first step towards quelling the sectarian violence that was preventing political progress. Unfortunately, I think that though the surge played a part in the reduction in violence, we are seeing that it was largely diplomacy and politics (the Mahdi cease-fire) that had the largest role in the relative peace that occurred post-surge. Additionally, the political progress has still not been made.

 

So in the end, I think I agree with the Democrats' position of now using the removal of troops as a bargaining chip with which to force the Iraqis' hands in actually putting forth real effort to secure the nation on their own, and to move the political side of it forward.

 

To me, the only alternative solution is to further enhance our presence in Iraq, to effectively crush the opposition and leave no excuses for the Iraqi government. I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs in this scenario.

[Chef Jim]

I was asking about people's opinion. Right or wrong, people have opinions -- as reflected on this board every day.

 

I understand but we get reports that vary so much there is no way to give a well informed opinion and I'd rather not pull one out of my arse like some do.

[DC Tom]

Against the war.

 

Ambivilent about the surge...on the one hand, I didn't think it would work (I have and will continue to insist that the Madhi Army's cease fire had more to do with the reduction in violence than the US military putting more targets into the theater). On the other hand...what was before it wasn't working, so trying something different was not necessarily a bad thing. Anything that keeps Iraq reasonably under control until someone figures out how to stabilize it and wrap this up is basically fine by me.

[molson_golden2002]

For the most part, it seems that people typically fall one way or the other on this issue.

 

Typically, if people were for the war from the beginning, they are for the surge.

 

People who were against the war are also against the surge for the most part.

 

I was vehemently against the war from the time W and his administration started beating the war drums against Iraq. Yet, I am in favor of the surge. As much as I was against the war, I do believe that we have a responsibility to create some stability. We opened up Pandora's box and have, in my view, created a more dangerous situation for the US. than existed in the days of the no fly zone.

 

I was curious whether there are any other people on this board who are in favor of the surge, but were against the war.

I was very much against the war and am against the surge also. I, like many, don't see any good options. I just don't think the surge will work. The way I look at it is that our military cannot push an economic, social, cultural and political revlution onto a country in a "surge time line." You know, shock therapy doesn't really work, especially in this case. Creating a free market republic requires changes at every level of society, in the way it thinks, acts and views the world. It takes evolution, not revolution. Even if the goal is just stability, I think a good argument can be made that our being there undermines that by simply being the outsiders, attracting jihadists and resentment.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Against the war.

 

Ambivilent about the surge...on the one hand, I didn't think it would work (I have and will continue to insist that the Madhi Army's cease fire had more to do with the reduction in violence than the US military putting more targets into the theater). On the other hand...what was before it wasn't working, so trying something different was not necessarily a bad thing. Anything that keeps Iraq reasonably under control until someone figures out how to stabilize it and wrap this up is basically fine by me.

That, I think, is the big under-reported story in all of this.

 

Both sides are acting predictably stupid about this, but to say that the surge is working when its intended purpose (fostering political progress) has by and large not been met, and when what success it has had in large part has depended on Al-Sadr's militias standing down.... Seems like it's rejecting the big picture.

[molson_golden2002]

Against the war.

 

Ambivilent about the surge...on the one hand, I didn't think it would work (I have and will continue to insist that the Madhi Army's cease fire had more to do with the reduction in violence than the US military putting more targets into the theater). On the other hand...what was before it wasn't working, so trying something different was not necessarily a bad thing. Anything that keeps Iraq reasonably under control until someone figures out how to stabilize it and wrap this up is basically fine by me.

The Sunnis rejecting the violence and barbarity of the Islamic radicals is what I saw as the main factor.

[chicot]

The Sunnis rejecting the violence and barbarity of the Islamic radicals is what I saw as the main factor.

 

Yes, the setting up of the awakening councils has had at least as much to do with the improved security situation in places like Diyala and Anbar as anything else.

[outsidethebox]

I would have to say I am against both. we need to get out of that region as fast as possible. Where just delaying the inevitable when we do leave. there going to have to take there lumps.

[molson_golden2002]

WASHINGTON — President Bush, saying that "normalcy is returning back to Iraq," argued Thursday that last year's U.S. troop "surge" has improved Iraq's security to the point where political and economic progress are blossoming as well.

 

Bush coupled his description of the situation in Iraq, meant to lay the groundwork for next month's report to Congress by U.S. military and diplomatic chiefs, with a forceful slap at war critics.

 

"Some ... seem unwilling to acknowledge that progress is taking place," Bush said in a speech at the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. He accused war opponents of constantly shifting their critique, adding: "No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same — retreat."

 

 

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31825.html

[Thunderstealer]

The "sons of Iraq" is a good thing...the cooperation of factions against alQuaeda is a far cry from the civil war talk of a year ago.