The Instigator
righty10294
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The troop surge is working

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,339 times Debate No: 1068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (16)

 

righty10294

Pro

Potentiol debaters:

First, this is a debate about is the surge working. This isn't about the war in general or anything like that, it is just the surge and is it or isn't working.

I can't see how the trooop surge isn't working. Please all you anti Bush tree hugging liberals, tell me how the surge isn't working. In November, violence in Baghdad was down by 55% since the surge began. At the end of September, Deaths and casultiers were down dramaticly. Atttacks have been reduce too. A Colorado Army BIrgade lost 80 or so vichels to IED's before the surge, now they have only lost 1 since then. We are in control now, so may you prove that the surge isn't working.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

i think we should keep tropps in iraq, but doubt we should keep the surge.
how do you define "working"?

obviously, by the stats you provide, and general consensus, he surge is accomplishing something.

the real question is what is it ultimately accomplishing? if not what we want, then it's not "working".
is it simply mitigating an unavoidable bad situation that iraq is doomedd to deal with?
if the violence isn't going to be going stop or next to stop anytime soon, then it could be rationally viewed as simply mitigating taht unavoidable hell.

our duty to our own soldiers trumps our concerns for iraq.
we have a duty to the iraqis since we created the problem. and we have a duty to ourselves for intelligence purposes, to create some semblence of stability, and to combat al quida.
our duty to our own tropps is greater than to the iraqis though. so, we take the surge back, and take care of those other points i mentioned. we just cut out the extra fluff.
now, is that extra fluff crucial for "some semblece of stability"? maybe, i don't know the details enough. it'd seem we could get some seblemce without a surage. if we accept this surge, why not a greater surge? it should the argibrariness. if arbitrary, to a egree, we should defer to our own troops.
plus, britian is largely pulling out, and staying only to help out iraqi soldiers at times. now, i don't know if their situation is similar to ours, if they have more solider or what, but it'd seem we maight be able to do the same. i reallyu need more info, and it'd be big of all sides to admit this when reasoning to points like this.

i'm not sure if this is what you wanted in the debate, if this is "war in genereal" or not that you wanted to avoid. but, i think it could meet what you're looking for.
Debate Round No. 1
righty10294

Pro

Dairygirl

Thank you for accepting my debate, and please don't forfeit round(s).

You say to define working. I know that you know what i mean by working, but I will define it anyway. Working is it (the surge) is doing what it was ment to do. Another word, it isn't exactly like it, helping.

"what is it ultimately accomplishing?"-Dairygirl

The surge is ultimately accomplishing a safer Iraq for not only their citizens, but our troops too. I bet you that our troops feel safer in Iraq than they did before the surge. There is ultimately less chance of an attack. You may say that we already have a safe Iraq than before. That was before. It is still dangerous there. The is still chances for bombs, murders, tortures of Iraqi citizens. The surge is just a large step on the latter to a safe Iraq.

I don't see how your argument is saying that the surge ISN'T working. I think it sounds more like why the surge shoud have never happened. But I will try to respond to it.

"cut out the extra fluff"-dairygirl

What is the extra fluff? Why should we cut it out? Please explain more.

If Britain is pulling out, why should we? America is the greatest country on earth. We are the power house. We lead the way. So why should we follow Britain?

There are many effects of the surge. Of course we have the obvious, less casualties and more security. Then there are other things that there are no facts for. More Iraqis are getting seriouser about security than ever before. Time Magazine said in an article in February that Baghdad was too quiet. Yes that is too quiet.

The month with the highest death rate, April and November 2004. That was 3 years ago, so the surge has lowered the death rate.

Your argument, wasn't really about why the debate isn't working.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

the economist is a good site for facts on the war.. http://www.economist.com...

here's one on the surge reducing violence etc as you were saying, the graph is especially compelling on causaualties
http://www.economist.com...

as i said, we value our troops more than their people. but not to an endless degree such as if one soldier dies we're not gonna allow a thousand iraqis just to have prevented that.
now, when the surge went in, killings in iraq were like at two thousand per year, now it's around three hundred.
i don't think that includes deaths of american soldiers.

last i heard, the deaths of amiericans was eight hundred per year, the worst amount, since the surge started. now, you have a point, that realtively given more soldiers more would die, but statistically there are in fact fewer soldiers dying per soldier stationed there. that's a good point, but more soliders are still dying.

so with the soldier deaths increasing, we have to make a point to stop it. we laso have to stop iraqis to a lesser degree, we have a lesser duty.

now, is it really two thousand deaths as the state i've given? if you look at the link, the average was probably around a thousand. so we're getting a solider killed for an iraqi saved.

but, even if it was a soldier to iraqi death ratio that we could accept now, if the iraqis aren't ponying up and doing their part, we have to start giving up hope for them.
ultimately, all we should be doing is giving them oversidght etc.

these things are so dependant on facts and such, i'm not sure how so many people can form opinino on them based purely on rhetoric. i'm still forming my opinoin because there needs to be good stats on where there's strongholds, how many soldiers per iraqi saved we have, why they're not taking control with their own police and army's with our oversight etc.

so i mean, we don't necessarily cut out the fluff, ie the surge... but ultimately we should, and it really depens on the sitution as far as right now.

so is it working? "working means accomplishing what it's meant to do" is way too vague. that hasn't addressed my issue that working isn't concrete. it's reducing violence, but at what cost to our soldiers? and why aren't they doing anything?
and another element, ron paul would push, is that us being there is making it worse.
working isn't necessarily keeping things down by force, working is what matters to us ultimately..... not necessarily by force with many soldier dead, not necessarily staying at all if it means they're getting worse and madder, not neceessarily if they're not doing their part. those are what matters.

i can't give concretes... but that's the nature of teh beast. many uncertainties. many facts that need to be seen. the only sure thing i know, is that you and myself even are not qualifed to answer them. probably no one is really, but there are surely more who have much more knowledge and insight on this stuff than we do.
is it working? maybe. not necessarily. who knows? i'd like to meet him. and i'm not just saying that to be cynical, i'm sure there's people in the know out there.
Debate Round No. 2
righty10294

Pro

dairygirl

Thank you for this debate, it has been very interesting and you have opened up more ideas to me.

I do understand how the surge is working, but the Iraqis aren't doing there part. We are currently teaching thousands of Iraqis to work for the police, army, etc. They can't be ready to defend their country in 1 day. It takes time to learn everything. It took our country 7 years to become officaily free (July 4th 1776- Treaty of Paris September 3rd 1783) Also another 5 years to adapt our current Constitution. So, why are we rushing the Iraqis so much? Of course we have better technology now, but the risks are higher too.

Your argument could have only helped me, by saying that the surge has lowered violence in Iraq. That's what we are talking about here. I ment for you to argues reasons why the surge ISN'T working. You just say it is, and give reasons why we shouldn't have done it. The sub-title of te second article, says "The surge of American troops has dramatically reduced violence." That is what I'm arguing, the surge is working.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

those are valid points, that it takes time to do stuff like teach iraqis. your point in this vein is a nice theory, but i'd have to hear a reputable major make the statement, to ensure it has a bearing in real life.
the point being, many times theories sound good.. like iraqis should be doing their own thing... but it really depends on how much progess they're making and have made and all kinds of things. i need harder data, even if it just means a reputable opinion of someone in an official capacity.

i was hesitant to join this debate. the reason? because i sort of knew that "working" to you meant that we're accomplishing many things that we previously have not, to a significant degree. and you were probably looking for things like... "your info is wrong, or much too narrow given all the other stuff" the later part of that statement sort of what i was arguing.
i took the debate anyway, because there is so much more to consider than just the stat information that you initially posted.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Actually most army want to be there , but since they do the longest tours , they have a hard time with being separated from their families , but to say most don't want to be there is not true.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
...and that poll is a year old. Support has dwindled further since then.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
I favor an immediate pull-out. I am not insulting the troops by saying they don't want to be there. Most soldiers in my unit opposed the war in Iraq. They realize that this war was a bad idea http://www.militarycity.com... all of the most recent polls show the same thing. I think the Marine Corps is the only branch that has a majority in support of the war, which was about 57%.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Also to stop the surge is what will actually put these men and women in danger, why would we limit the numbers now that the death toll is going down and the peace is increasing? Why put our troops in danger , by limiting their numbers.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
vikuta , The troops do want to be there , at least the majority do. There is not one guy in my husbands unit that wants to go home , besides the fact that they miss home. Every army wife I know in my forum , that has a husband there , they want to be there. Although there may be the soldier here and there that may not want to be there , do not insult the troops by making a generalized statement that they do not want to be there. Ask the majority of soldiers who have not been there , if they want to go over and they will also usually reply yes.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
The Iraqi people don't want us in Iraq and the troops don't want to be in Iraq.
Posted by robertc 9 years ago
robertc
I notice the government public relations people have apparently succeeded in substituting "surge" for what we used to call "escalation" both in the media and in ordinary discussion.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
In order to assess whether or not the troop surge is "working" - one needs to first establish what the framework or metrics are for evaluating it (the burden of which is on righty10294). One must also develop the time frame over which we're judging its effect - did it begin months ago as troop levels were being increased slowly (when violence was higher than it had been in years), or did it begin only recently when all 30,000+ of the troops actually set foot on the ground?

The other question to be asked is whether or not we can assess its success level right now. If for example, when troops return to their former levels, violence returns to its normal levels - wouldn't that mean the surge was a failure given that the goal was to put in more troops temporarily to guarantee long-term stability?
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by reagan_views 9 years ago
reagan_views
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by texasrulz10 9 years ago
texasrulz10
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BB1 9 years ago
BB1
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Bigmomma1 9 years ago
Bigmomma1
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by NapoleonofNerds 9 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
righty10294dairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30