Help me understand Obama's position on the surge in Iraq. I understand he has

[gratefultobelib]

said he would vote against it if it were to come up for a vote again. Is this right? He is being criticized for this position since the surge is considered to be a "success." I want to be able to argue intelligently with my RW cousins.

P.S. I'm a 66-yr-old woman who was a Hillary supporter, and it took me about 23 seconds to switch to Obama!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. What it boils down to:

If you add more troops, of course there will be a drop in violence. If they had 6 million troops in Iraq, for example, violence would probably be very low because they could cover more area. However, the question left is "now what?". Nothing has been done about the Iraq political scene, so the second you take those troops out, violence resumes. So, your options are, keep troops there for a long time, or bring them home.

In other words, the surge is only a temporary solution, not a longterm one.

[gratefultobelib]

2. Thank you for taking the time to answer with such a succint understandable reply! Would you

help me with another question? This was actually in a recent David Brooks column where he pointed out that Obama's proposal is to move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan where, of course, they are sorely needed. How will this affect the domestic policies? This will not free up money for, for example, our health care needs here at home.

[Butch350]

3. Something like...

The surge may have worked a little - but there is still no political stability - the surge did not accomplish that.