The surge working...2008 implications?

[Reaganfan]

It appears as though the troop surge pushed by people such as President Bush, Senator McCain and other leading Republican candidates is working...and it's likely the report coming out next week from General Petraeus will show that.

So...what happens if this good news continues? Do the democrats continue to sound negative despite good news? What implications does this have on them and can it hurt the democrats if things look good and the democrats seem as though had we listened to them we wouldn't have had progress?

[Reaganfan]

The surge has failed.

American combat deaths in Iraq have dropped by half in the three months since the buildup of 28,000 additional U.S. troops reached full strength.

[Reaganfan]

Notice how you guys are trying so hard to be negative...to look at the bad...you guys literally want failure, don't you?

[Reaganfan]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

[Reaganfan]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

So what#s your longterm strategy? Keep the whole of Iraq under the strictest occupation regime for ever?
Best to transfer in an additional 200,000 troops, in that case. You'll need more police and secret service and army than Saddam needed to achieve the same objective, and they'll all have to be Americans.

I would think that if we just smother the region with thousands and thousands of troops and the Iraqi government steps up better results, the violence will stop. We will have troops there for many, many years...how many depends on how fast the job gets done.

[Reaganfan]

I almost think it would be best to add an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq NOW...to assure any surge that is working remains working and gets better.

So what#s your longterm strategy? Keep the whole of Iraq under the strictest occupation regime for ever?
Best to transfer in an additional 200,000 troops, in that case. You'll need more police and secret service and army than Saddam needed to achieve the same objective, and they'll all have to be Americans.

I would think that if we just smother the region with thousands and thousands of troops and the Iraqi government steps up better results, the violence will stop. We will have troops there for many, many years...how many depends on how fast the job gets done.

Care to elaborate? What would be "better results" for the Iraqi government?

In general, better results. Maliki needs to show leadership and take charge of his country. When it comes to their local government and the Iraqi security forces...their effort has been meager at best. They need to step up better.

[Reaganfan]

Even if the surge works, it's meaningless.  Public support for the war is flatlined no matter what happens with the surge, and troops are going to need to be pulled out soon regardless of how it progresses.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

[Reaganfan]

The President will speak to the nation this week in a primetime televised address on the success of the surge that will be released in the report.