I Guess 17,000 Troops Isn't a "Surge"

When George W. Bush went against everyone--including many in his own party--and ordered an increase in troops to quell Iraqi violence, the media went nuts and dubbed it "The Surge". Democrats seized on it and made "surge" a bad word.

Now the tables have turned and Obama has ordered a large contingent of new troops into Afghanistan and it's not labeled a surge anymore:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed off on an increase in U.S. forces for the flagging war in Afghanistan.

"To meet urgent security needs, I approved a request from (Defense) Secretary Gates to deploy a Marine Expeditionary Brigade later this spring and an Army Stryker Brigade and the enabling forces necessary to support them later this summer," Obama said in a statement issued by the White House.

About 8,000 Marines are expected to go in first, followed by about 9,000 Army troops. Some 34,000 U.S. troops are already in Afghanistan.

Granted, Obama has essentially said throughout his campaign that diverting troops from Afghanistan into Iraq was a bad strategy and has rightly decided to upgrade but where are the anti-warriors who screamed about both wars? You know that some case of wayward soldiers acting badly will occur. It happens in every war. Will that case become what defines Obama as Abu Ghraib did Bush?

Mark my words, we will now hear about huge gains in Afghanistan now that it's Obama who is the CinC. The dirty little secret is that we've been winning huge battles up to this point if anyone took the time to actually report it.

Make no mistake, this is now Obama's war. Bush ensured we won the one he was called responsible for. By taking the tack that we should not have diverted our strength from the mountains of Afghanistan for use in Iraq, Obama made this a just war and a war he supported.

We won in Iraq, can we win in Afghanistan with an increase in troop strength? Here's hoping we can.