Quote:
Originally Posted by justme
Mornin' norman...as usual, I respect your views on the military and Iraq as being your true thoughts and not those you copied from some website.
I'm not sure what "victory" is anymore and I don't see a pro-US democracy in Iraq anytime soon.
However, this statement..." 1) A change in US tactics by General Patraeus where he dispersed and positioned (permanently) US forces throughout the troubled areas."...seems to be a little partisan spin when used to downplay the surge effect.
The statement below was made describing the intent of the surge.
"...specifically called for a "large and sustained surge of U.S. forces to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad" with "a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops..."
The other reasons you give no doubt have contributed. But it would seem all the measures complement each other. To say the surge has little to do with the drop in violence just doesn't ring true.
|
Hi justme,
Maybe I'm downplaying the additional 30K troops too much. However, from a mathematical perspective, I can't see how going from 140K to 170K troops in a country of 20+ million people or a city of 6+ million can really make much of a difference...if any...at least, by itself. I think the three reasons I cited above (maybe combine #1 with the additional troops) have had a far bigger impact on the violence in Iraq.
__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???
And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...