Think of it this way, (and I think Defense Sec. Rumsfeld put it correctly when he said that the insurgency could go on for a decade of more): If it was America that happened to on the sharp end of a superior and unwelcome foreign occupying force (fortunately, this is a thought experiment rather than a likely future scenario), I would imagine that most able-bodied patriotic Americans capable of firing a weapon would be taking the fight to the enemy in whatever way they could. I would for sure. This is a no-brainer.

I am not suggesting a way out of this mess for the simple reason that a workable solution involves some degree of "loss-of-face" for the architects of this war. Knowing that "loss-of-face" is the ultimate no-go area for testosterone-addled hawks in the Pentagon, then its plain that we are in there for a long and painful haul.

Thomas Friedman—0ne of the few pundits willing to admit that he doesn't already know how the Iraq war will turn out—writes an important column on that very topic. To start, however,

Burns says that Freidman also noted that after years of weak responses to earlier terrorist attacks and our failure to take out Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War, we were seen as weak and not willing to take casualties.
The president couldn't say...

The whole idea is support not occupation.

I haven't heard any Iraquis making "double the troops" requests. Have I missed something here?

And consider the anti war response to such an action.

Next thing you know Friedman will be calling for a draft so we can sustain the troop requirements.

Breathtaking.

I thought it was the US military dominating the war in Vietnam, failing to cultivate an autonomous government and an autonomous military, that led to our failure there. Exactly how would re-creating such a dependency benefit us in Iraq?

Would the government be perceived as stronger or weaker with a larger US military presence? Would the Iraqi military be more or less likely to stand and fight? (Keeping in mind that, at present, there's quite a bit of American firepower there as is.)

As for praktike's suggestion, a few considerations:

1. Saudi Arabia? You mean the Wahhabi stronghold from which much of the funding for Islamic terrorism (including al-Qaeda) comes from?
2. To help put down an insurgency that, from quite a few reports, is as much al-Qaeda and foreign fighters as it is Sunni Iraqis? Hmmm. Perhaps we should also have sought Soviet assistance in suppressing VC guerillas?
3. And Syria? Would that be the same Syria that the NYT and others have reported is regularly shipping insurgents and guerillas into Iraq in the first place?

Methinks that this is more a formula to ensure we lose, rather than a workable solution towards solving the problem.

Actually it does not take that much training to blow yourself up or plant an IED, but they certainly have financial support both from Iran and Syria. If a galvanizing Shiite figure arose, he would certainly be opposed by the Kurds and the Sunnis, but...

Wow. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.