Will you support the "surge" of troops into Iraq on any basis?

[AX10]

I am 100% opposed to this "surge". Iraq is lost and we must pull of this year!

[FiveGoodMen]

1. The longer we stay the more people die ... on both sides.

[mckara]

2. Why Support It?

To let the CinC fall on his sword and destroy right-wing credibility on security for the next 50 years!

[Bjorn Against]

5. He has already destroyed their credibility for 50 years

We can not allow him to do any more damage, he must be stopped. We need our investigations to start quickly so we can get some accountability for once.

[snowbear]

3. And don't forget... AX10 said if you vote YES to explain why....

..

[Imagevision]

4. Bush escalates the war when he clearly know's the american people are against it!!

phase out, Bush can only think, Oil-oil-oil!!!!

[w13rd0]

7. I agree...

...phase out Bush.

[FogerRox]

6. YES

THey can surge right on home.






The first troop can get on a plane home today.


Surge protector

[AX10]

8. Interesting way of putting it!

[FogerRox]

15. Lets surge the 1st troop home on a plane RIGHT NOW

[mdmc]

9. YES - if Wes Clark says so

war is hell. Thats why I opposed this deal-i-o from the beginning.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. But he doesn't

In a science fiction universe where the near impossible can still happen I could come up with a fantasy scenario that might justify sending more troops to Iraq for a short time. Let's say for example that it turns out the Iraq insurgents (without the Al Quada element) were secretly negotiating with Shiites loyal to Ayatollah Sistani, and a grand compromise for power sharing inside Iraq was agreed to. Lets say all kinds of shadowy figures came out of the woodwork to say "yes it is true, we reach across our divisions and seek peace between us all". Let's say it involved a referendum on major Constitutional amendments in order for the peace deal to work. And lets say that Al Quada in Iraq vowed to make blood run in the streets if anyone tried to vote in that election. Wildly implausible enough for everyone?

OK, so maybe then I would support sending in more troops for two months so there could be additional security to protect those very promising elections. Maybe.

[mdmc]

17. actually, I was thinking of the future

President Gore announces a surge, Clark agrees...

The thing is, getting out is going to be hard to do. We should have never gone in there.

[elfin]

10. Only IF there is a concurrent "Surge" - ala "Escalation" of

nitty gritty diplomacy (who remembers that?) with neighboring entities to have them "own" the unrest WE have created. This, of course, is what Wes Clark posited yea many years ago.

Petraeus is good --- BUT even he is hamstrung by the fantasy of Dumbya. However, he can work enough short term successes to get * off the hook temporarily vis a vis "who lost Iraq". The delay wlll put the "blame" on his successor.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Even then though

There would have to be some concrete reason to believe that sending in more troops then for a short time could possibly help in some tangible way rather than make matters worse. Even with active positive diplomacy there is no abstract reason to suppose that more troops wouldn't just cause more problems. In a purely theoretical way I would be open to considering the possibility that they could help, but only as part of a larger sane plan and only if a real case can be made to explain why, even in that case, more good than harm would come from it. Sadly, I don't see us getting to any place under this Administration where that question could even be asked. They act allergic to nitty gritty diplomacy.

[mentalsolstice]

11. No, but I didn't support the IWR on any basis either. n/t

[Clarkie1]

14. Here's why I can't answer this poll....we have to use the leverage we have.

We need to make clear to the administration that we will not support their "surge" unless there is a fundamental change in their underlyng political philosophy from one of disengagement with Syria, Iran, and other countries in the region to one of engagement. In other words, they need to admit that the neo-con policy has failed and begin real diplomacy thoroughout the entire region. This would have to be an admission by real action on such as scale that it would make clear that the entire philosophy that was used to justify the war is practically and morally bankrupt.

It's the best argument we have, and one that will resonate with the American people: it's not just the surge that is wrong, the whole neo-con philosophy that led us to this point is wrong. By using the idea of a "surge" to engage the administration in a debate about the underlying basis of their entire neo-con policy and philosophy, we gain the upper-hand, eventhough it is 99% certain they will never change their underlying policy and philosophy....and thus, the idea of whether we would support a surge under any circumstances becomes largely a moot point in the real world, and the American people will see the utter failure of the neo-con policy.

What Clark is doing is tactically brillant. Eventhough it is extremely unlikely there are any circumstances where an increase in troops anywhere in Iraq would help at this point, instead of simply saying "no surge under any circumstances," (as Bush says "no talking with Iran and Syria under and circumstances") he is attacking the broader, underlying political philosophy at the foundation of the idea for a surge by saying the idea cannot even be considered unless the broader policy changes. It keeps the focus on the failed neo-con policy as a whole, not just this the small part of it that this "surge" is.

[trashcanistanista]

16. yes on one condition

That they are sent to escort and transport the exisiting troops home immediately.

[No Exit]

18. ABSOLUTELY NOT! Nor will I support any war on Iran or Syria

or any other ill-conceived murderous adventures from the demented brains of Bush and his fucking neocon masters!!! And that's FINAL!!!

[flaminbats]

19. a surge isn't a solution..

the solution is producing an exit strategy, providing stable jobs for the unemployed in Iraq, and repealing Bush's taxcuts to cover the entire cost of this war!

But a surge in deployment?....if we can't solve this problem by 2008, then when can it be solved?

[primative1]

20. I Vote Yes ...

Under these hypothetical conditions ...
After the resignations of Bush and Cheney, when a new and competent administration publicly espouses a case where aditional troops in Iraq might lead to a stable transition to "some form" of government there that would stabilize the region.
This "some form" of government" likley would require the removal of the present puppet regime in Iraq with something actual people could support and were willing to fight for.
Point is, If Iraqis arent willing to do this now for themselves then there is likely some reason why not; most likely they have no vested interests in seeing one tyrant prevail over another.