My favorite quote from the article: "When he voted against the surge in January 2007, he claimed on more than one occasion that it would lead to increased casualties and sectarian violence. It didn't. How'd he get that one wrong?"

Five choices: (A) Poor judgement, (B) Ignorance (C) Political calculation, (D) Blinded by ideology, or (E) It was so outlandishly unlikely that almost nobody else would have thought of it either.

Pick one. Those are the only choices.

Nice distraction but really it is not a legit argument against Obama.

The surge was intended to produce protection from violence and chaos long enough for the Iraqi leadership to make nice with each other and establish the new government which would then be in charge so we can leave.

The surge failed. This mission did not get accomplished.

What the surge did do:

1-Reduce violence and chaos in the places our troops were stationed (logic dictates that where the troops are the bad guys dont go). Bingo on that one. Now what happens when the troops arent there anymore? Answer--just last week suicide bombers took out plenty of civilians. In other words without the surge the violence and the chaos return. That a surge works temporarily isnt the argument-any idiot could tell you it would work in that respect.

2-It took US troops out of Afghanistan. Result was that the Taliban has re emerged in a big way. Just as what happened when the surge left Iraq, when troops left Afghanistan it went back to what it was.

3-It increased the overall cost of the war to America and prolonged the civil war by delaying it yet again. As with Vietnam, we have seen that without the US troops the puppett regime cannot hope to control the country nor does it have popular support. We need to let the IRAQIS do the figting and the dying and then work with what is the official government-even if it isnt the people we would prefer.

And to your list of Obama choices it was pretty bad. Consider the fact that you assume Obama meant the results would be DURING the surge and not a result of the surge. I think that we are NOW seeing the results of the surge including the results it had when it left Afghanistan less occuppied and its failure politically to create a united Iraqi government. It isnt that the surge would stop the chaos-as I said any idiot can drop a bunch or armed people in a city and reduce crime-people with guns on street corners will ALWAYS reduce crime. But what happens when they leave is the real indication of its success. Why cant you guys measure results AFTER an action?

Will we ever know if the surge worked until we draw down? The violence may erupt again we our numbers are smaller, and the recriminations begin.

ZZim is:

A) Shallow & Sophomoric

B) Stupid

C) Ignorant

Pick one. Those are the only choices.

I heard The Surge also cures cancer, by itself.

Why do people refuse to accept that there were other factors that led to the decrease in violence? And that McCain doesn't even seem to rember when they happened. It really makes arguments look pretty pathetic. But I guess that's all they have.

The Surge also cures athlete's foot, I hear.