Iraq+troop+Surge

Iraq Troop Surge President Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province 17,000 more soldiers to Baghdad to help Iraqi national police and military units quell Sunni-Shi'ite violence 4,000 Marines sent to go after al- Qaeda fighters in the Anbar province "Only one major combat unit will be sent that was not scheduled to go. Other units will go earlier and leave later — indefinitely later, since there is no end date or condition. It is also questionable whether they will be effective, since previous "surges" have been failures." ~ __UC Berkeley__ linguistics professor __George Lakoff__ __ Progress: __ Reports of car bombs, suicide attacks, civilian casualties have been on the decline, though the levels generally remain higher than in 2004 and 2005. Both the American and the Iraqi Gov. reports note a roughly 50% drop in the number of civilians who have been killed since the end of 2006. According to Iraqi government data, the number of civilians nationwide who died as a result of violent causes dropped to about 2,000 in August from about 4,000 in December 2006. American military statistics shows that the number of civilian deaths declined to 1,582 in August from 2,989 in December. "Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006," the Iraq Body Count, a British-based nongovernmental group, said in a recent analysis on the "surge" of American forces in Baghdad. "Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement." //__ PROs __// An act of loyalty to troops currently deployed Abandoning Iraq would be disastrous for the US Increased support at this crucial moment will help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence therefore the day US troops come home will hastened The infusion of more American troops encouraged Sunni tribes, including former insurgents, to align themselves with American forces, providing American troops with additional allies in their struggle to establish order in Iraq. Retired Gen. Jack Keane: ""Increasing troop levels in Baghdad for three to six months would virtually ensure US victory." // f< // //__ CONs __// Troop escalations have failed in other parts of Iraq in the past Sending additional troops will be a crutch for the Iraqi government in delaying their judgment decision in order to take the security Is it really more loyal to put troops in the midst of a civil war? Sen. Clinton sees surge as "holding pattern" j Afghanistan is more of a priority than Iraq • The president is continuing a strategy that has failed Past and present U.S. generals say the "mission" in Iraq unsalvageable