Yes, that’s what it’s really called. Escalation. Not “Surge”. Surge implies what? Temporary increase in troops? Tell that to 3,403,100 Vietnam War veterans. They were “surged” several times.
He still doesn’t get the point. Sectarian violence is only half the problem in Iraq. The other half is American Infidel presence in a Muslim country. They don’t want us there. We defile their shrines, rape their women, and murder families. Yes, I am exaggerating, but I am looking at it from their perspective. And believe me I have the inside scoop on a Middle Easterner’s perspective.
What will the differences be in a “surge”? Well, this time say the generals in the field, our troops won’t clear militants from towns and villages, then leave, allowing them to come back in. They will clear and hold.
Really? We have enough resources to clear and hold every village, town and city in Iraq that is undergoing sectarian violence? 20,000 more troops will do it? We had 500,000 troops in Vietnam at one point. Five Hundred Thousand. That was still not enough to clear and hold. Anyone remember Hamburger Hill?
The will also attack both Shia and Sunni militants.
That’s right. No more taking sides. Double your enemy, double your fun, double your casualties.
Opposition to this move is everywhere. Congress especially. But Congress has the power of the purse string, and can only vote to withhold funding for a surge. A vote that is not likely given the fact that members could be accused of not supporting the troops in battle.
I really think it’s possible to support troops that are there with what they need to survive, and to withhold funding for additional troops.
Refuse to give them plane tickets.
It’s that simple. Not one US dollar to be spent to transport an additional soldier to Iraq. Yeah, send all their stuff over, their helmets, their Kevlar, their rifles and bullets. But they don’t get to send the soldier. Nope, no money for that one.
Work on that one Nancy and Nick.