"Surge" as used re Iraq and Afghanistan is basically a political term. It would have had no meaning in the U.S. of World War Two where most people supported the war and knew it couldn't be won overnight, and where soon on we began to rack up major victories with few setbacks. The military equivalent of "surge" for the U.S. during World War Two was the amphibious invasion. Operation Torch was a surge, as were Overlord and Dragoon.
"Surge" in Iraq meant reversing a bad situation which had resulted from civilian Pentagon officials trying to conduct a war on the cheap with yes-men as generals. This was not the case in World War Two. There was a huge industrial build-up at home, a logistics driven strategy abroad, the use of massive firepower and a slow but steady build up of broad front pressure to where it became irresistable. Marshall and Ike would not have tolerated the civilian Defense Dept. meddling we found in Iraq, nor would Roosevelt (the least meddlesome of civilian war leaders on either side) for that matter. Furthermore, the Donald Rumsfeld of that day, MacArthur, was kept safely away from the main theatre of action.
For the record, I believe that if ASBs had replaced Bush, Rumsfeld and Tommy Franks, with Roosevelt (or Truman), Marshall and Eisenhower in late 2001, there wouldn't have been any second Iraq invasion at all. They would never have been fooled by a cheap con man such as Chalabi, and they would have recognized that Wolfowitz and the other neocons had no military experience or judgement and sent them packing back to academia.