"There is no difference between GW Bush's Iraq surge in 2007 and Barack Obama's Afghan surge in 2010. Only silly Democrats could object to one but support the other."
Actually, Fred, there's a big difference between the two. The Bush administration and its supporters saw (continue to see?) Teh Surge 1.0 as essential to "winning" in Iraq, while most left-of-center military analysts saw it as a measure to protecting US troops but not really the central or sole contributer to stabilizing the country. With Teh Surge 2.0, once again, it isn't that this troop increase will allow the US government to "win" but it might be (again) one measure among many needed to stabilize Afghanistan. (no, Karl, it isn't to "fight terrorists." ).
But nuanced arguments about the reality of military operations aren't what Fred's all about. He'd rather continue his man-crush on GW and dream about the "success" that Iraq has become. And when the RNC supports the Afghan surge, you can be sure that it's more because they are still defending Teh Surge 1.0 of Iraq and not really thinking about how to finish operations in Afghanistan after Teh Surge 2.0.
