Public Opposes Troop Surge by 61% to 36% Margin

Gallup’s Frank Newport reports that a poll conducted last week found overwhelming public opposition to sending more troops to Iraq, with only the Republican base in favor.

[T]he weekend USA Today/Gallup poll included an approximation of what news accounts indicate is the most likely scenario, phrased as follows: “As you may know, the Bush administration is considering a temporary but significant increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there. Would you favor or oppose this?”

This wording includes several salient features: 1) it emphasizes that this will be an administration policy, 2) it points out that the surge would be “temporary,” and 3) it indicates that the surge would have a specific purpose (“to help stabilize …”).

The results are as follows:

Gallup Poll Iraq Troop Surge - Overall

Additionally:

It should be noted that the current poll measures Bush’s overall job approval rating at 37%. This suggests that the core support for the pending announcement of a surge essentially mirrors the size of the president’s core base.

In fact, analysis shows that the 36% support for the surge option is based primarily on strong support from loyal Republicans, two-thirds of whom support it. About a third of independents support it, compared to only 12% of Democrats:

Gallup Poll Iraq Troop Surge - Party Breakdown

Newport adds:

At the same time, it would not be unusual to find that support for the president’s probable call for more troops in Iraq — once the proposed policy shift is made public — will be higher than this baseline minimum. This assumption is based on the fact that the action will no longer be hypothetical, but will have the institutional weight of the presidency behind it after the Wednesday night speech. A surge will, in essence, have become the stated policy of the country. It is particularly likely that Republicans will increase their support for the policy after the president’s announcement.

Certainly true. Still, it’s going to be very difficult at this point to move the public on this since, as a separate report indicates, overall support for Bush has remained steadily low for well over a year and support for the war is at its lowest ebb: “Just 26% of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, with 72% disapproving — the worst evaluation of Bush on this issue during his presidency.”

Gallup Poll Iraq Competency Trends

The bully pulpit is arguably the most potent tool in any president’s arsenal. Unfortunately for Bush, he is quite possibly the least talented public speaker to hold the office in the television era. And I’m not sure even someone with the oratorical skills of a Ronald Reagan or John Kennedy could persuade the public that Iraq is winnable at this stage of the game.

FILED UNDER: Iraq War, Public Opinion Polls, , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Rodney Dill says:

    I wonder what the public opinion is about life under Sharia law.

  2. Dave Schuler says:

    The answer to Rodney’s question is that people are quite favorable to Sharia (things as they are in those countries) but pessimistic about their own lives. Here it’s the reverse.

    It’s been quite obvious for some time that “the surge” was a policy without much of a constituency except within the immediate circle of the Bush Administration. I think there may be a lager mentality.

  3. Andy says:

    Rodney’s comment would make more sense if one thing was remotely related to the other.

  4. LJD says:

    would make more sense if one thing was remotely related to the other.

    Sort of like public opinion and war planning.

  5. Patrick McGuire says:

    I wonder what the results of this poll would have been if the question had been phrased somewhat along the lines “Do you favor a troop surge to win the war and get the troops home earlier?”

  6. legion says:

    Unfortunately, LJD, you’re dead wrong. Like many on the right, you’ve forgotten what a democracy actually means – the government works for _us_, in _our_ name. That means that an absolutely fundamental concept in any democracy is _transparency_. We have to know _what_ our government is doing and _why_, and that is something that Bush has never shown the slightest interest in doing, let alone the oratory skill to convince people to his point of view.

    And don’t start deliberately conflating public debate over the goals, merits, and progress of a war with micro-managing tactics. That’s not what’s being discussed now, and you know it.

  7. Rick DeMent says:

    McGuire,

    Sure they would also have gotten the result you were looking for if they phrased it, “would you be in support of a troop surge if it would mean an end to all strife and sectarian violence in the world…”. The problem is that a troop surge cannot guarantee that outcome any more then it can guarantee “winning the war” or bringing the troops home earlier.

    Fact is that in order to quell the sectarian violence we need to place about twice as many troops in country as we have now and be prepared to leave them there for at least the next ten years if we even hope to restore anything like a peace in Iraq.

    Short of that, the escalation … er surge will be a worthless failure. But frankly I am in favor of the “surge” under one condition that the administration be given full financial support and full political backing with the understanding that this policy is his and his alone, and that they fully accept any success or failure alone so that this mindless, one-dimensional, military approach to world problems can forever be repudiated as the worthless failure it is and it’s proponents can be forever consigned to the dustbin of bad ideas along with “New Coke” and Ted Kennedy for president.

  8. Pug says:

    Sort of like public opinion and war planning.

    It is amazing how far George W. Bush has led the right-wing base from the Powell Doctrine. They’ve abandoned every aspect of it.

    Powell postulated that you can’t win a war without public support, and he was right. He also called for the use of overwhelming force and a clearly defined mission in combination with an exit strategy. The Bush administration has ignored Powell’s doctrine in favor of a utopian nation-building exercise.

    Powell was attempting to distill the lessons we thought we learned in Vietnam. Apparently some of us learned nothing from that tragic war.

  9. LJD says:

    Aside from your anti-bush tirade, Legion, how exactly am I wrong? I said war planning, as in the conduct of war, not the decision to go to war. The “democracy” pretty much approved that one, much to the dismay of political amnesia.

    The day we employ the average citizen in the deciding the daily conduct of war is a step towards losing every engagement. Because the lay person does not have the intelligence, military or otherwise, to make the necessary decisions. That’s why we are a representative government. We elect people to manage such matters.

    Exactly right, it is incredibly difficult to win a war absent public opinion. Which leads me to ask why there is such a persistent campaign to both affect public opinion and secure our loss of this war. Amazing what people will support to prove a political point. Of course we’ll see more with this Congress, who see our troops as nothing more than political capital, and this war as nothing less than a hit below the belt for the President.

  10. legion says:

    I said war planning, as in the conduct of war, not the decision to go to war. The “democracy” pretty much approved that one, much to the dismay of political amnesia.

    Well, we could around and around about misinformation & the manipulation of intelligence & public opinion to support a war in the absence of an honest threat to national security, but that’s a whole ‘nother debate…

    Because the lay person does not have the intelligence, military or otherwise, to make the necessary decisions. That’s why we are a representative government. We elect people to manage such matters.

    True, but ther’s no guarrantee that the people elected have the ability to make sound military decisions, either. That’s what we’re seeing now – a growing realization (and accompanying public debate) about the overall competence of our senior civilian leadership. The President does not have an inherent right to lead us off a cliff – he & his cohorts have screwed up the war effort so badly that even an increasing number of Republicans are losing confidence in his ability to manage a war, and the number of Americans who trust the man, on any subject, drops on a near-daily basis. What you’re seeing, LJD, is the visible impact of that loss of confidence, and we’re not going to wait until November ’08 to make these opinions known.

  11. LJD says:

    You already made it known, again and again and again. Now the President is implementing the change of course that was demanded- but they don’t want it anymore?

    We can argue over and over the run up to war and the decision to go, and what has happened since then. But I will ask again, what now? Like I said on another thread, you no longer get to shift the goalpoasts. If you (or the anti-war politicians)want a full pullout, then say so, and accept all that goes with it. Take some responsibility for the consequences of your position. You cannot criticize the current course without acknowledging or at least thoughtfully weighing the problems with the alternative. Contradiction is not a policy.

  12. legion says:

    You already made it known, again and again and again. Now the President is implementing the change of course that was demanded- but they don’t want it anymore?

    Huh? In case you hadn’t noticed, Bush wants to increase troop levels, and change nothing else – THIS IS STILL “STAY THE COURSE”. Some of the names have changed, but Bush is not implementing any new strategy whatsoever.

    But I will ask again, what now? Like I said on another thread, you no longer get to shift the goalpoasts. If you (or the anti-war politicians)want a full pullout, then say so, and accept all that goes with it. Take some responsibility for the consequences of your position.

    There will be a bloody civil war in Iraq. Our “strategy” to date has ensured that – it doesn’t matter if we stay or not, it doesn’t matter if we increase or decrease troop levels, it’s going to happen, and it’s our fault – something we _all_ have to take responsibility for.

    As for what now? Iraq still needs to be rebuilt. Its’ infrastructure – power plants, schools, hospitals, etc. are still a shambles. It needs a government that the Iraqis, at least a majority of them, trust not to be a puppet of America. And America can’t do those things alone. Bush abandoned diplomacy a long time ago, and his ham-fisted efforts (“We don’t need to talk with Iran & Syria, they’ll just do what’s right if they know what’s good for them”) have done nothing but make it less and less likely that anyone will work with us on anything. The sad fact is that Bush has trashed our nation’s rep to the point that we _cannot_ make Iraq a better place so long as he still has power.

  13. LJD says:

    Bush is not implementing any new strategy whatsoever.

    Well don’t miss a beat on your campaign against the President. Don’t wait to even see what he has to say tomorrow. Glad you already know-it-all, and have it all figured out. Maybe you ought to be the President?

    You seem to think that no matter what Bush does, there will be civil war. That pulling out is o.k. regardless of the consequenses, which you continually ignore. I can imagine if we had a Dem leader saying we needed 50k more troops, you would think that were o.k.

    BTW, the troop increase is coupled with changes on the ground, including infrastructure rebuilding. Oh and also BTW many qualified commenters on the subject think the source of much of the violence is precisely those you would negotitate with.

    Pathetic. Maybe you ought to listen to the speech tomorrow? Make it fun, have a beer every time you get red in the face and make huffing noises.

  14. anjin-san says:

    LJD,

    Bush hardly needs the average citizen’s help to lose the war in Iraq, he did that all by himself…

  15. Mark says:

    LJD said both of these in the same thread:

    Now the President is implementing the change of course that was demanded

    Well don’t miss a beat on your campaign against the President. Don’t wait to even see what he has to say tomorrow. Glad you already know-it-all, and have it all figured out.

  16. Alternate headlines:

    Public Nominally Ignorant of Implications, Meaning, Context, Strategy, and Logistics of Troop Surge by 61% to 36% Margin

    Blog Commenters Public Nominally Ignorant of Implications, Meaning, Context, Strategy, and Logistics of Troop Surge by 61% to 36% Margin

  17. Carl Gordon says:

    Bush is wining the war! The commie MSM is resposable for the lyes and untruths beeing pedaled threw the meedia. Until we can throw these loosers out of are beloved country, we should just ignoor them! Think about it. Look how much good has been acompleshed sinse bush was elected. We cant stop now, were almost their! Support bush 110%

  18. LJD says:

    Mark: Your point? There have been preliminaries on the Bush proposal all week. These guys are here telling me that this is a military-only solution, and that it won’t work. They are ill informed, and seem to want it not to work.

    Comment in violation of site policies deleted.

    Doesn’t any bush-hater have new material? Some ideas that might work and be good for the U.S.? At least the balls to admit you are for the death and destruction in Iraq that will result from our premature pullout? How about some explanation as to what motivates you all to be totally comitted to the failure of our foreign policy and the GWOT?

    Comment in violation of site policies deleted.

  19. Mike says:

    Can’t any neo-con drop their delusional hysteria for two seconds? Your shrill “we’ll all be living under sharia law by next year!” crap has gotten old with the public. Fact of the matter is, even if sending 150,000 more troops to Iraq for the next ten years would quell the violence somewhat and allow an Iran-type democracy to take hold, it’s just not worth it to the American public. And stop talking about the horrible threat of civil-war when we pull out. Our actions and presence in Iraq have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s, and you want us to believe that “cut-and-run” will be a disaster for Iraq? This isn’t a freaking game of Risk and it’s not about proving to anyone the size of our foreign-policy c*cks. It was a mistake to go in and we need to get out…now.

  20. slingshot says:

    There is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution. The real problem is not that that The W can’t articulate why Americans should support a surge (which he couldn’t), it is that no one really knows what the point of the surge is. “Stabilize the situation” is a vague reason, and it is very unclear why this number is the correct numner, what temprary means, and what stabilize means. The real goal, now, is to set up an American compliant Iraqi government, which may be impossible. WHile it is nice to talk about an a democratic Iraq which can take care of itself, why do we think that such a government will do what we want? This premise is based on the big assumption that the Iraqis will/should be so grateful for our help, that any democratic government will be pro-American. This doesn;t look likely. So how will people react when we say, we want to surge 20,-30,000 troops to help install a pro-American government in Iraq. WIll anyone believe these numbers will achieve this goal? I doubt it. This surge is to make it look like there’s a plan, when there isn’t one (this is obviously staying the course, except with more people). What happens when we surge and the situation stays the same or gets worse- more surging? I know, I know “what if it gets better?” But, what if it doesn’t? Doesn;t it seem like more troops will seem more like an occupying military, of a comepletely different race and culture? How long will Iraqis want that, no matter even if we assume for arguments sake that many Iraqis, at least at first, did support the invasion? SO it seems that surge is a bad idea. It could be a good idea if it is done for the express purpose of lessening the lethal impoact of an american pull out which, boys and girls, is inevitable and will create chaos. However, even if the surge were to be made for this purpose, with what percentage of the american public does the W have enough credibility to convince people that this is what he is doing. I am betting not much. This state of affairs, unfortunately, is the end result of having an inarticulate liar leading an incompetent and deceptive administration. I know supporters of The W will get bent out of shape for that last comment, but it is what most people think now, sorry to break it to you.

  21. Carl Gordon says:

    Comment in violation of site policies deleted.

  22. Carl Gordon says:

    Sorry about that, that guy make me mad! How dear he call me name just becaose I suport the president. In staid of calling me name, why dont you come up with some intelectewal argument to debait? Its easy to be sinical, a lot harder to love and suport your country in time of war. And we our wining! Support bush!

  23. legion says:

    Oh, it’s not just in the same thread, Mark, LJD can’t keep his froth foaming properly within the same comment:

    Don’t wait to even see what he has to say tomorrow. Glad you already know-it-all, and have it all figured out. Maybe you ought to be the President?

    Followed exactly one paragraph later with:

    BTW, the troop increase is coupled with changes on the ground, including infrastructure rebuilding.

    Obviously, we are dealing with a true psychic.

    How do I know what Bush will propose, LJD? I claim no psychic powers; merely observation of his character. Stubbornly clinging to a particular course of action & supporting world-view, regardless of evidence or effectiveness, has been a hallmark of this Presidency – if you haven’t figured that out yet, we’re both wasting our time here. Let’s just wait and see – I’m sure James will have a thread up about the speech tomorrow. If I’m wrong, you’ll see me here eating crow.

    And by the way,

    I can imagine if we had a Dem leader saying we needed 50k more troops, you would think that were o.k.

    You’re dead wrong. As Don Henley once said, “Evil is still evil; in anybody’s name”

  24. Sirkowski says:

    Weak President is WEAK!

  25. Jim says:

    Some interesting and observations. In the linked poll there are five possible responses:

    1) Withdraw Immeditately 15% (this is down 5% from Oct 20 -22)
    2) Withdraw in 5 – 12 Months 39 (this is up 5 percent from Oct 20 -22)
    3) Withdraw, as many years as needed 31 (this is down 4%)
    4) Send more troops: 12% (this is up three %).
    5) No opinion: 2% (same as previous poll)

    Reading the complete poll: 54% of Americans want us out of Iraqi from now to 12 months time. 43% of Americans still support American presence until the mission is accomplished.

    Bottom Line: The poll does not really answer the question whether people are in favor of more troops in a honest fashion.

    One item that infuriates me: Ted Kennedy said today that the American people are infront of Congress in the Iraq war. Well Mr. Kennedy, as the majority party why don’t you do something about it? When will the Democratic leadership begin advocating immediate withdraw since Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are currently advocating ‘stay the course.’

  26. LJD says:

    Exactly right Jim. It’s not just the polls either. Just look at how craftily Legion takes comments out of context and rearranges the meaning to suit his purposes. They can do it with the President’s words, with my words, McCain, anybody they disagree with.

    It’s really pitiful, that they can’t even formulate an argument beyond:
    We’re doomed to lose and there are no solutions!

    What I can’t seem to get out of them though is:
    We abandoned the Iraqis in the 90’s and we can do it again!
    Who cares if we show the world that we ARE a paper tiger!
    If I’m gonna pay for something with my taexs, then dammit it’s gonna be on foreigners right here in the US!

    This isn’t about the administration, or how the war started (some can’t seem to get out of the past). This is about right now. This is about our desire not only to win, but a genuine desire to create peace in the world. Any perspective other than that is an indication of mental illness.

  27. Over_educated says:

    Any perspective other than that is an indication of mental illness.

    It is difficult to have a rational conversation about public policy when you characterize anyone who disagrees with your position as crazy.

    I think from a strategic point a pull-out may be the choice that benefits America’s long-term interests.

    The way I put together the decision tree is like this:

    1. Is the war winnable? Answer: Maybe

    2. If the war is winnable what will we have to do? Most military experts and ex-generals agree we will need to massively increase troop strength (at least double) and keep them there for an extended (>10 year) period of time.

    3. Do we have the resources (in troops and political will) to implement the strategy that is necessary to succeed? Unfortunately, no. We do not have enough troops currently to send into Iraq (we are stretching to send the 20,000 additional troops as it is). The only way to get enough troops is to re-institute a draft (barring a miraculous swelling in interest among America’s youth’s in a career in the military). I honestly cannot see a situation where even an Republican controlled Congress would do that.

    If we are not going to do what is necessary to win, we are better off leaving now and re-grouping rather than let Iraq slowly destroy our moral and military. While not a particularly good solution, and one that results in significant loss of American prestige, it may be the better of two evils. Winning the longer war against terror is in my mind more important than saving face.

    So… What we have is both sides being disingenuous. The President is unable to drawn down troops because his ego won’t let him and the Dems won’t support a withdrawal (even though they may believe it is the right thing) because they prefer to win elections over fighting for something that the believe may help the country, but would hurt them politically.

    The result: More of the same and the American people are the ones getting screwed.

  28. Herb says:

    Congratulations are in order to the Left Wing Main Stream Media and the Democrats.

    They have succeeded in making the American Public in to a Clone of France that have always thrown their hands up in Surrender at the first sign of difficulty.

    It was a good thing that Americans disregarded the dismissed those who, like Chamberlain, had every desire to give in to Hitler.

    It’s now to bad that Americans of today now have the desire to “Surrender” like the Frenchman they seem to be.

    The Cowardly Left Wing Media and the Democrats should be very proud of their success and with the disastrous results that are sure to come in the future.

  29. Tim says:

    “Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders,” – President George Bush

  30. LJD says:

    Funny that as soon as I call some one on keeping things in context, I am once again taken out of it. Why not print the whole quote:

    This is about our desire not only to win, but a genuine desire to create peace in the world. Any perspective other than that is an indication of mental illness.

    i.e. If you are not for winning or peace, very likely you are an insane person, or at the very least you are so blinded by your politics that you no longer see the forest for the trees.

    It is however refreshing to have a discusion with some one willing to adress specifics, beyond the limitations of hatred for the President.

    The only flaw in your reasoning is assumptions about exactly what the troops may be required to do, whose troops will do it, for how long, and what the acceptable condition for withdrawal will be.

    I anticipate the goal to be securing Baghdad and the borders, so the Iraqi military and police will have a better time of doing the work themselves. I also think a key component will be improving opportunities for Iraqis so there is more buy-in for, or even faith in the whole process.

    Although I do think it is sad that Democrats would use this issue for political currency, and likely the 08 election is also looming for the Republicans, I think it is a stretch to say it is based in GW’s ego.

    Hopefully, Americans will listen carefully to his words tonight, and try to look within themselves for an ounce of respect. All things considered, I truly believe the President is trying to follow the best path. I have to believe that, because he is my Commander in Chief, and very likely I will be filling a pair of boots, beyond my initial 8-year military service obligation.

  31. Over_educated says:

    Herb: Calling people who believe withdrawal is the correct strategic choice “cowards” and, even worse, “French” doesn’t convince me (or, I believe, the American public). I got over the “if you don’t do what I say you are a sissy” thing back in Elementary school.

    If you believe that there is a rational strategic choice for the U.S. for our current situation in Iraq that has:

    A) a likely chance of succeeding
    B) is possible in the “real” world (I mean the world we live in as it exists now rather than the world as we would like it to be),

    please put that strategy forward. Support your answer.

    I find World War II analogies to be almost without fail entirely specious. In World War II we were fighting a large country with an enormous military machine that was taking over large swaths of the civilized world. In this situations we are fighting against an insurgency that is sparking a civil war. These are two entirely different types of conflict. No one fears that Iraq is going to gobble up the rest of the Arab war and use the proceeds from Oil wealth to fight a conventional global conflict.

    The result of our withdrawal in the Iraqi conflict will most likely result in a bloody civil war in Iraq, a loss of prestige and an emboldment of anti-U.S. terrorist elements. I am not suggesting these are good things, these are terrible things. I am suggesting that those results are preferable to bankrupting out country, ruining our military and THEN having a bloody civil war in Iraq, a loss of prestige and an emboldment of anti-U.S. terrorist elements.

    Obviously the most preferable outcome would be to defeat the insurgents and install a pro-U.S. democracy in Iraq. But I have yet to see anyone adequately explain how exactly we are going to do this, and particularly how the addition of a small force of 20,000 troops makes this possible. Maybe the President will in tonight’s speech, but he is going to have to very convincing.

  32. Over_educated says:

    I anticipate the goal to be securing Baghdad and the borders, so the Iraqi military and police will have a better time of doing the work themselves. I also think a key component will be improving opportunities for Iraqis so there is more buy-in for, or even faith in the whole process.

    An excellent start, but the reason I am skeptical is because the “hold and clear” strategy has been tried before in places like Fallujah. While it does work in the place being held and cleared, it tends to create more unrest in other locations as the insurgents just move operations somewhere else.

    In order to make this strategy work, we need enough troops to maintain control of the areas we have already cleared. The Iraqi military is not up to the job (or at least has shown themselves to not be up to the job so far) so it is going to be incumbent on US to maintain order. We cannot do that without many, many more boots on the ground in Iraq.

    I have immense respect for Gen. Abizaid, and I think his appointment was the smartest move that the administration has made in this war so far, but he is a no-win situation. His own counter-insurgency manual explicitly states that proper troop:population ratio is an essential component of any counter-insurgency strategy.

    The reason I say G.W.’s ego is that I believe he knows at this point he cannot muster the political or public support to do what is necessary to win this war (draft about 100,000 more troops and put them in Iraq). Rather than taking the best strategic route he will not countenance that he is wrong because of what it means to his reputation and legacy.

  33. Herb says:

    Over Educated:

    You stated, in your last paragraph, “the desired result””. I agree. However, “the desired result” will never be achieved by “Cutting and Running”, which is what the left wing media and the Democrats have been preaching for the past 3 years. While everyone must know the purpose of this “cut and run” blast has been political vengeance for their loss of the Presidency for Gore and Kerry, it turned out to be revengeful and has hurt the entire campaign in Iraq.

    In that cut and run is the favorite of the cowardly French, it seems to fit the mold in what is happening right here in America with some who give little or no thought of the consequences after a pullout. Sadly as it is, 9/11 has been already forgotten and with the present thinking of many Americans, aided by the revenge of the left wing media and the Democrats, we are doomed to re-live it all over again, sooner rather than later.

  34. SmugCanadian says:

    Just passing through.
    I don’t understand this cult of personality thing people in this country have with their politicians.
    They’re civil servants for christ’s sake!
    Shouldn’t show them anymore blind devotion or cut them anymore slack than you would the guy who delivers your mail. They get paid to do a job and if they’re screwing around you don’t just take it.
    Feel free to pick on the French as much as you like(everybody does that) but remember they tried to stop you from getting into Iraq in the first place(like everybody else on planet Earth).
    It’s like “Hey! Don’t step in that pile of flaming dog-poop!” and then being pissed that they tried to stop you. Silly.
    Wish you guys luck in Iraq, but if you think this guy in the White House is going to ride to the rescue, then maybe you should increase your meds.

  35. over_educated says:

    You stated, in your last paragraph, “the desired result””. I agree. However, “the desired result” will never be achieved by “Cutting and Running”, which is what the left wing media and the Democrats have been preaching for the past 3 years.

    Than pray tell, how will it be achieved? The odd thing is I fundamentally agree with you, that the best thing for this country and the world would be for us to achieve a stable, democratic Iraq. I think even the left-wingers would agree with that. My question is how will this be accomplished and how will the addition of 20,000 troops accomplish this?

    I have stated in previous threads what I believe we need to do to win this war, for whatever reason this country will not support it. We can deal with recriminations later, right now I want some level headed folks to start making decisions based on the realities here and abroad. “Staying the course” is idiotic if we do not bring the resources to bear necessary to win. If we are not going to do that “cutting and running” is our only option and we should do this sooner rather than later to minimize the damage.

    Instead of sloganeering, please explain to me how we win this war by surging 20,000 troops into Iraq, because I honestly don’t see how it is going to help at all. I’m sure there will be plenty of blame to be heaped on all political stripes after this colossal f-up. In fact that’s what the politicians on both sides of the isle seem to be spending the majority of their time doing, while we continue to put our troops in harms way.