By Any Other Name, Troop Surge is Still Reinforcement

January 29, 2007

With the announcement by President Bush recently that he intends to commit an additional 21,500 troops into Iraq, to curb the sectarian violence in Baghdad and the opposition coming from most Democrats and some Republicans, I wonder if they really wish to see this war won.

Calling it a “troop surge” is a devious method of deflecting reinforcing our troops there already. You recall them, no? The ones that Iraq War opponents have been crying all along are dying due to not enough troops?

Occasionally, “escalation” is used in lieu of “surge,” in the effort to turn the War on Terror in Iraq into Viet Nam and draw away more public support.

Surge shares meaning with words as • flood • cascade • cataclysm • deluge, trying to indicate a failed strategy before it is even given a chance. Very crafty propaganda technique to hide a strategy opponents must be worried will succeed.

Reinforce shares meaning with words as • buttress • aid • assist • back up • bolster • brace, showing the real intent, to secure a troubled area and win this fight.

Throughout the history of warfare, many a battle would have been lost if not for Commanders seeing their forces weren’t large enough and sending in reinforcements. The Battle of Gettysburg, in our own Civil War in the 1800s is a prime example. The Battle of Chickamauga, one of the bloodiest in the same war, is another that would have been lost, if not for sending in reinforcements.

Guadalcanal, in World War Two, was nearly lost due to Commanders expecting reinforcements but instead, losing Marines. Sheer determination brought that campaign to Victory, after some time.

In Northern Africa, British Commander O'Conner, planned to capture Tripoli but decided to wait for reinforcements. During this time, German Commander Rommel reorganized his forces, which could have lost that battle as well, if not for the strong Australian defense Rommel ran into.

The invasion of Normandy was successful, although a very bloody battle, due to the allies being able to continually reinforce their troops while cutting of the ability of the Germans to bring reinforcements for theirs.

Today, we are in another war against a force wanting to dominate the world and yes, it too is a hard bitter fight. For all the crying of “not enough troops” in Iraq from the day we invaded you would think these same people would be elated Bush is reinforcing the troops there now, but that isn’t the case.

They label it a “surge” and “escalation,” hiding the fact that it is a reinforcing of troops to win this battle. Makes me wonder if any of these politicians opposing the reinforcement today seriously desire to see our troops killed and America lose the battle in Iraq.

Democrat, Republican, doesn’t matter. In my book, anyone not calling for VICTORY in this battle, not calling for the DEFEAT of Al Qaeda and other insurgents is a traitor and ultimately will bear the blood of many fallen troops on their hands.

It is long past time to put this partisan bickering aside and get behind our troops. Telling them they cannot win is not supporting them; it is depleting their morale and desire to win.

If you believe as I do that our troops are worth reinforcing and saving, that this battle needs won, please visit and sign the Truth Laid Bare Pledge and let’s help our brave troops achieve the VICTORY they desire.

Lew

UPDATE: In support of what I first said, Democrats have begun calling this an "escalation," designed to further convince the public it is just Viet Nam II.

Pelosi: ‘War in Iraq Cannot Be Won Solely by Military Means'

DNC – Iraq Escalation

That is just two examples of how they are fudging wording to kill any chance of victory in Iraq.

Amazing how Democrats will sell out both the country and the troops for political gain.