If the Iraq surge is a success and done what it was intended to, why does McCain want US forces to stay?

Question

You can't have it both ways.

Before the surge we had to stay because things were supposingly falling apart. As it turns out, they weren't and all it took was a lot of bribe money (US tax dollars) to get the sunni tribal leaders and al-Sadr's Mahdi army to lay down their weapons.

Now that the surge has been a huge success, we need to stay for how long? Another 100 years?

For what, the govt. to stabilize?

Well, h**l they met 15 of the 18 benchmarks and are getting ready for another round of elections.

So what is the point of continuing to spend $12 billion a month in Iraq?

If this isn't the definition of "victory", what is?

Answer 1

Sure you can first of all the threat is still there but the brainless among us are acting like Chamberlain screaming that peace in out time is at hand because a moron is in the middle east saying nothing about everything like Chamberlain.

Answer 2

The Surge that McCain had good judgment on and not Obama, is not a success, it's Succeeding, therefore we must stay until it's totally won....

Answer 3

Because leaving could mean loosing all of the progress we've made. If that happens it could lead to genocide, terrorism, terrorist safe havens, destabilization of the Middle East, growing Iranian influence, additional wars, the rise of dictators etc. It would be even worse than when we started off.

I don't think we need to be there for 100 years, but we will always probably have some sort of military presense there. Chances are we will begin to bring large numbers of our troops home because we have had so much success recently. The New Iraqi government is almost ready to stand on it's own, thank God! So, yeah, I would say this certainly is a decisive victory for the U.S.

Answer 4

Excellent point. I think he wants to be the one who decides what victory is. Seems to be an EGO thing.