The troop Surge is a viable solution to the situation in Iraq.

Yes the troop surge is working right now, and may continue working IF WE HAVE TROOPS THERE. However, no citizens of American will have the patience to maintain the current troop levels for decades to come. In fact, according to a Washington Post poll, http://www.washingtonpost.com... 53% of Americans want a deadline for pull out. 67% continue to oppose troop surge. While debate for whether to keep the US in Iraq for 1 or 2 more years is heated, there is absolutely no question about extending the US's stay for a decade. This does not make the troop surge a "viable" one, for it is more of a cheap band aid on the violence instead of a solution that truly targets the problems of Iraq. The troop surge is not "viable" in the long term situation of Iraq. Now, we can look toward the actual causes of the violence in Iraq. Yes, problems in Iraq stem from Political reasons, and because of this, a political solution should be explored. Simply, by going into the region the United States ignited centuries of hate between Shiites and Sunnis. It is this conflict that caused Britain to pull it's influence from the region decades before. This conflict has been suppressed in recent decades by Saddam's militaristic and totalitarian regime. He was one to use military to quell dissent. It would not send a good image of a supposedly democratic nation is we also were to use this tactic to quell fighting. It would go against the basis of democracy if a long term occupation by US troop surge forces were to be maintained. Also, with the execution of Saddam Hussein, which took place on a Sunni religious holiday, but not a Shiite religious one (the Shiite holy day started the day after) this clearly shows that the predominantly Shiite government has not pursued compromising solutions between the two fighting parties. These diplomatic approaches would not only be more democratic, but pose a better solution than packing troops in because it actually TARGETS THE PROBLEM. If someone has heart problems, a doctor would first look toward possibly unblocking arteries, rather than installing a machine do the pumping for it. Now, we can look toward this "democratic nation" in particular. You brought up the point that the IM is ineffective. Yes, this is the case, however this has been due to a lack of attention on the Iraqi government's part. Training of these forces have been very slow, and what's more is that much of the IM is actually infiltrated by militants. Targeting a solution with the Iraqi Military is much more practical than just packing US troops into every inch of Iraqi territory. You stated that it has bought Iraq time to build up a functioning military, however, the future of Iraqi police forces do not look bright due to this reliance on US troops, which you acknowledged as existing. Also, the fact that Iraqi security forces are infiltrated compromises their effectiveness further. It is true that Iraq is our duty, however I am in no way saying that we should just cut and run from Iraq. My point is that there are much more better solutions that can be pursued other than the troop surge- and further troop surges. To summarize the arguments I have made in second round: 1)Long term US involvement at this troop level is not possible 2)Political solutions would make for better solutions than a troop surge. 3)These political solutions have not been fully explored by the Iraqi government. 4)IM is ineffective, is infiltrated, the army build up is slow.- Due to US reliance. 5)These solutions should be targeted, and the troop surge is not viable in the light of the solutions that target the problems, instead of just trying to stop violence by brute force.