Dems don't want troop surge. Payback to Terrorists and Sheehan?

Recently Al-Queda and Dirty Sheehan claimed credit for Democrats victory in 2006. At one point Harry Reid and other Democrats were considering a troop surge in Iraq to help qwell the violence and to train more Iraqi troops.

Now all of a sudden Al-Queda and Dirty Sheehan show up demanding payback for their support of the Democrat Party in 2006. Now Reid and Democrats are dead set against a troop surge? Hmmmm?

The more I think about it, it might not be payback to Al-Queda and Dirty Sheehan.

It could be that the Dems just want to flat out lose this war.

Or it could be a combination of both?

The Dems are just hedging their bets by playing both sides. They're going to give lip service to the antiwar left by complaining about the troop surge, but they're not going to do anything legislatively to stop it.

Originally posted by RRconservative
The more I think about it, it might not be payback to Al-Queda and Dirty Sheehan.

It could be that the Dems just want to flat out lose this war.

Or it could be a combination of both?

well, there has been no explaination as to what the administration would do with the "troop surge"

all we know now is that we'd be doing more of the same with more people

it could be that the democrats simply want a policy that doesn't involve increasing troop involvement when the mission is supposedly accompished...

[edit on 1/8/07 by madnessinmysoul]

mission accomplished but job not done; stick that straw into your hat

RRconservative Heres a healthy dose of reality.
The Dems are listening to Military leaders who aren't puppets of the Bush admin.

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future

Link

McCain is gambling that by 2008 coalition involvement in Iraq will have or be close to an end. McCain will be able to supporters of the status quo "if more troops had been send this wouldn't have happened."
Bush is using a call for a troop increase in Iraq to deflect any calls from the Dems for a withdrawal.

Even supporters of the status quo don't support a troop increase.

Adding ten or twenty thousand more U.S. combat troops – mostly soldiers and Marines – isn't going to improve Iraqi willingness to fight their own fight – an imperative if we are to claim victory in this war. While putting 200,000 American or NATO troops on the Iranian and Syrian borders to stop infiltration might make sense, that's "mission impossible" given the size of U.S. and allied armed forces.

A "short-duration surge" in U.S. combat strength also ignores progress that is being made on the ground in places like Al Anbar province – where few of the so-called mainstream media dare to spend much time. In Ramadi, long a hotbed of Sunni terrorism – new National and Provincial police forces are increasingly effective. Calling themselves "The Sons of Al Anbar" – thousands of young Iraqi males have volunteered to defend their cities, villages, homes and families from terrorists.

Link

More troops in Iraq would nothing but provide more targets for the insurgents and increase the casualty rate.