Say... isn't two years too long for something called a 'surge' ? After all, two years is 50% of the time we've been in Iraq so far already. Sure, after two years, we'll have been there six years, and the 'surge' part will be down to a mere 33% of the total, but I'm not sure that makes the cut, either.

Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.
W
June 28, 2005