Palin’s Surge Math

In last night’s debate, Sarah Palin said

And with the surge that has worked we’re now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq. That’s where we can be. We can start putting more troops in Afghanistan as we also work with our NATO allies who are there strengthening us and we need to grow our military.

Are we indeed down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq? It does not appear that we are, not by a long shot. The U.S. had 132,000 troops in Iraq when the surge was announced in January, 2007. We are currently hovering around 146,000, not including the 8,000 coming home by February, 2009. Even counting those troops, she’s still off by 6,000. It’s hard to understand why she and McCain keep driving that point that is so easily refutable.

3 Responses to Palin’s Surge Math

  1. [...] In last night’s debate, Sarah Palin said. And with the surge that has worked we’re now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq. That’s where we can be. We can start putting more troops in Afghanistan as we also work with our NATO allies who …[Continue Reading] [...]

  2. Eliyahu says:

    Palin talks here about sending more troops to Afghanistan. She is thereby following obama’s proposal in fact. That has acutally been one of obama’s themes for some time now, as in his speech in Berlin at the Second Reich’s Victory Column. He said there:
    The Afghan people need our troops and your troops.

    So obama is just as eager for war as McCain or Bush, for that matter. What amazes me is that the so-called “liberals” and “left” don’t seem to notice that obama is calling for sending more Americans into war. Is it OK for obama to do it, in their opinion, but not for george bush to do it? Are they just stupid or do they try not to notice that their idol is just as eager for more war as anybody else in DC?

    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-means-war-obama-is-war-candidate.html

    of course, when zbig brzezinski is one of your advisors, it’s natural for you to propose sending more troops to one place while withdrawing them from another. This may be a sign of that fall or reason that oao talks about. It’s shocking that such imperviousness to actual fact is found among the academic crowd.

    Keep in mind that if obama is now talking about two more brigades in Afghanistan [as I saw reported] then after the election this could become five, six, seven, or ten divisions. Obama may cause so much world havoc in his four-year term [with zbig's helpful guidance] that even Black Americans may grow to hate him thoroughly –especially if enough Black kids get killed between the Hindu Kush and Herat.
    Of course, obama could set up a few really big welfare and restart-the-economy programs –as Lyndon Johnson did with his Great Society– that many people, black and white, won’t even notice.

  3. N00man says:

    So obama is just as eager for war as McCain or Bush, for that matter. What amazes me is that the so-called “liberals” and “left” don’t seem to notice that obama is calling for sending more Americans into war. Is it OK for obama to do it, in their opinion, but not for george bush to do it?

    Eliyahu–
    Many “liberals” also supported the Iraq invasion in 2003. We– I include myself– aren’t against military force, just its thoughtless application. Obama isn’t riding 50% because the listenership of Democracy Now supports him; like the Republicans once could, he can gesture toward the fringy base and win its confidence while still steering a temperate course. I disagree with RL’s suggestion that he’s susceptible to demopathic arguments.

    JN

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>