A Surge Is Still A Surge No Matter Where It Is
By gewcew23
@gewcew23 (8007)
United States
August 1, 2008 11:41am CST
Obama has pledged to shift two U.S. combat brigades, 10,000 troops, out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, raising American forces in that country from 33,000 to 43,000. Is that not a surge? Did not Obama say that the Surge would not work in Iraq? Why will a new surge work in Afghanistan? How is it that a surge of troops in Iraq could not work, even though it has, but a surge in Afghanistan will? Please feel fere to explain.
4 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
2 Aug 08
I am a bit confused as well... why is Obamoron so against us winning in Iraq... saying he was against the war in the first place, and so eager to go to Afghanistan?
We are fighting the same people in both places, so what is the deal?
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
1 Aug 08
The part Obama left out is that the transfer of 2 brigades probably is permanent instead of temporary. So, it is not a surge, it is a transfer of troops.
1 person likes this
@Yestheypayme2dothis (7874)
• United States
1 Aug 08
I would like to hear the answer to this from his supporters.
1 person likes this
