President Bush is proposing a surge of U.S troops in Iraq. He wants to send 30,000 additional troops to secure Baghdad. He believes that if Baghdad is secure, the rest of Iraq will begin to be secure as well.

I am against the troop surge. This war has been going on for four years. Two years ago we had the same troop level as President Bush is proposing now. We couldn’t bring order to Baghdad then!

Bush ignored the Iraqi study group that said we should use a diplomatic approach on Iraq rather than use force. It would be better to try a diplomatic approach, rather than a violent one. For one thing, you get less blood-shed when you send over an ambassador. You get more blood-shed when you send over 30,000 dangerous people with guns into Baghdad.

Iraq is in the middle of a civil war. Sending in 30,000 more troops won’t help. We don’t even know if Iraq wants to be a unified country; we could be fighting a war like Vietnam! How did that turn out?

I personally think we shouldn’t surge Baghdad. It is a little dot compared to all of Iraq, Iran, and Syria. We shouldn’t focus just on that one little dot. If there is a problem in Korea (the guys with the nukes), we won’t have any troops to send over there. This is why the surge is a really bad idea.