First of all, the surge worked in Iraq, Obama needs to admit it did and move on. He is also being somewhat of a moving target, look at Factcheck.com
which by the way shows where both sides messed up, good reading).
Well, I guess my question is, IF the surge in fact worked then why are we still in Iraq? Now McCain is not giving any straight talk here, it is double talk!! The surge has worked but we need to stay. Maybe this is a matter of semantics but to me, if the surge has worked we can successively start withdrawing our troops, if we can't withdraw troops and have to stay there, the surge has NOT worked.
The goal of the surge was to increase troop levels to give the Iraqi government time to breathe and accomplish reconsiliation of the different fractions in Iraq, to enable the Iraqis to take over the security of their own country. Now there was never any doubt if we increase the number of our troops that the secretarian violance would be decreased. The Iraqis seem to be convinced that they can do without us, they don't want us there, they think they can take care of their own country and by stubbornly insisting that we have to stay we are occupying a sovereign nation that we had no place to invade in the first place.
What I find very peculiar was that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said U.S. troops should be out of Iraq “as soon as possible” and in fact endorsed Obama’s withdrawal plan as the right time frame for a withdrawl with the possiblity of slight changes. After Obama's recent visit to Iraq the government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh reiterated his government’s stance, saying “the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for withdrawl. Bush argued for more time and the ultimate agreement was that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, not 2010, that despite of the fact that Bush had said “if they were to say, leave, we would leave.”
It turned out that the White House communications staff was concerned that Maliki’s endorsement of the 2010 time line would damage McCain’s presidential campaign. During an interview with Iraqi television last week (according to an Open Source Center translation
www.opensource.gov), Maliki suggested that the U.S. presidential elections played a role:
"Actually, the final date was really the end of 2010 and the period of 2010 and the end of 2011 was withdrawing the remaining troops from all of Iraq but they asked for a change in date due to
politcal circumstances related to the US domestic situation so it will not be said to the end of 2010 followed by one year for withdrawl but the end of 2011 as a final date."
Despite of Bush and McCain contantly touting that commanders and not politics decide on the course in Iraq, it seems like both are playing politics with the lives of American troops and the money of American tax payers for purely selfish reasons, ambition and political gain!!! It is appauling!!
That being said, I don't understand what is wrong with setting a goal of 16 months. It is what it is, a GOAL. I set goals for every day, every week, every month, every year and a long-term goal. It is a measure that keeps me accountable and focused. Goals need to be SMART, Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic and Time framed. A 16 month time frame in book clearly meets that requirement.
One of my teachers once said to me "most people aim for nothing in life ........ and hit it with amazing accuracy". Setting a goal or aiming for something enables you to set up a road map how to get there and when to get there, if I encounter road blocks or "traffic jam", a change in conditions, I reevalute, adjust, amend and look how I can get there without too many detours or time lost. I don't just drive and see what happens.
I understand what you are saying, Dorothy, I respect your opinion, I guess I just wanted to state a different view on things
