You stated, in your last paragraph, “the desired result”". I agree. However, “the desired result” will never be achieved by “Cutting and Running”, which is what the left wing media and the Democrats have been preaching for the past 3 years.

Than pray tell, how will it be achieved? The odd thing is I fundamentally agree with you, that the best thing for this country and the world would be for us to achieve a stable, democratic Iraq. I think even the left-wingers would agree with that. My question is how will this be accomplished and how will the addition of 20,000 troops accomplish this?

I have stated in previous threads what I believe we need to do to win this war, for whatever reason this country will not support it. We can deal with recriminations later, right now I want some level headed folks to start making decisions based on the realities here and abroad. "Staying the course" is idiotic if we do not bring the resources to bear necessary to win. If we are not going to do that "cutting and running" is our only option and we should do this sooner rather than later to minimize the damage.

Instead of sloganeering, please explain to me how we win this war by surging 20,000 troops into Iraq, because I honestly don't see how it is going to help at all. I'm sure there will be plenty of blame to be heaped on all political stripes after this colossal f-up. In fact that's what the politicians on both sides of the isle seem to be spending the majority of their time doing, while we continue to put our troops in harms way.

You stated, in your last paragraph, "the desired result"". I agree. However, "the desired result" will never be achieved by "Cutting and Running", which is what the left wing media and the Democrats have been preaching for the past 3 years. While everyone must know the purpose of this "cut and run" blast has been political vengeance for their loss of the Presidency for Gore and Kerry, it turned out to be revengeful and has hurt the entire campaign in Iraq.

In that cut and run is the favorite of the cowardly French, it seems to fit the mold in what is happening right here in America with some who give little or no thought of the consequences after a pullout. Sadly as it is, 9/11 has been already forgotten and with the present thinking of many Americans, aided by the revenge of the left wing media and the Democrats, we are doomed to re-live it all over again, sooner rather than later.

I anticipate the goal to be securing Baghdad and the borders, so the Iraqi military and police will have a better time of doing the work themselves. I also think a key component will be improving opportunities for Iraqis so there is more buy-in for, or even faith in the whole process.

An excellent start, but the reason I am skeptical is because the "hold and clear" strategy has been tried before in places like Fallujah. While it does work in the place being held and cleared, it tends to create more unrest in other locations as the insurgents just move operations somewhere else.

In order to make this strategy work, we need enough troops to maintain control of the areas we have already cleared. The Iraqi military is not up to the job (or at least has shown themselves to not be up to the job so far) so it is going to be incumbent on US to maintain order. We cannot do that without many, many more boots on the ground in Iraq.

I have immense respect for Gen. Abizaid, and I think his appointment was the smartest move that the administration has made in this war so far, but he is a no-win situation. His own counter-insurgency manual explicitly states that proper troop:population ratio is an essential component of any counter-insurgency strategy.

The reason I say G.W.'s ego is that I believe he knows at this point he cannot muster the political or public support to do what is necessary to win this war (draft about 100,000 more troops and put them in Iraq). Rather than taking the best strategic route he will not countenance that he is wrong because of what it means to his reputation and legacy.

If you believe that there is a rational strategic choice for the U.S. for our current situation in Iraq that has:

A) a likely chance of succeeding
B) is possible in the "real" world (I mean the world we live in as it exists now rather than the world as we would like it to be),

please put that strategy forward. Support your answer.

I find World War II analogies to be almost without fail entirely specious. In World War II we were fighting a large country with an enormous military machine that was taking over large swaths of the civilized world. In this situations we are fighting against an insurgency that is sparking a civil war. These are two entirely different types of conflict. No one fears that Iraq is going to gobble up the rest of the Arab war and use the proceeds from Oil wealth to fight a conventional global conflict.

The result of our withdrawal in the Iraqi conflict will most likely result in a bloody civil war in Iraq, a loss of prestige and an emboldment of anti-U.S. terrorist elements. I am not suggesting these are good things, these are terrible things. I am suggesting that those results are preferable to bankrupting out country, ruining our military and THEN having a bloody civil war in Iraq, a loss of prestige and an emboldment of anti-U.S. terrorist elements.

Obviously the most preferable outcome would be to defeat the insurgents and install a pro-U.S. democracy in Iraq. But I have yet to see anyone adequately explain how exactly we are going to do this, and particularly how the addition of a small force of 20,000 troops makes this possible. Maybe the President will in tonight's speech, but he is going to have to very convincing.

This is about our desire not only to win, but a genuine desire to create peace in the world. Any perspective other than that is an indication of mental illness.

i.e. If you are not for winning or peace, very likely you are an insane person, or at the very least you are so blinded by your politics that you no longer see the forest for the trees.

It is however refreshing to have a discusion with some one willing to adress specifics, beyond the limitations of hatred for the President.

The only flaw in your reasoning is assumptions about exactly what the troops may be required to do, whose troops will do it, for how long, and what the acceptable condition for withdrawal will be.

I anticipate the goal to be securing Baghdad and the borders, so the Iraqi military and police will have a better time of doing the work themselves. I also think a key component will be improving opportunities for Iraqis so there is more buy-in for, or even faith in the whole process.

Although I do think it is sad that Democrats would use this issue for political currency, and likely the 08 election is also looming for the Republicans, I think it is a stretch to say it is based in GW's ego.

Hopefully, Americans will listen carefully to his words tonight, and try to look within themselves for an ounce of respect. All things considered, I truly believe the President is trying to follow the best path. I have to believe that, because he is my Commander in Chief, and very likely I will be filling a pair of boots, beyond my initial 8-year military service obligation.

They have succeeded in making the American Public in to a Clone of France that have always thrown their hands up in Surrender at the first sign of difficulty.

It was a good thing that Americans disregarded the dismissed those who, like Chamberlain, had every desire to give in to Hitler.

It's now to bad that Americans of today now have the desire to "Surrender" like the Frenchman they seem to be.

The Cowardly Left Wing Media and the Democrats should be very proud of their success and with the disastrous results that are sure to come in the future.

Any perspective other than that is an indication of mental illness.

It is difficult to have a rational conversation about public policy when you characterize anyone who disagrees with your position as crazy.

I think from a strategic point a pull-out may be the choice that benefits America's long-term interests.

The way I put together the decision tree is like this:

1. Is the war winnable? Answer: Maybe

2. If the war is winnable what will we have to do? Most military experts and ex-generals agree we will need to massively increase troop strength (at least double) and keep them there for an extended (>10 year) period of time.

3. Do we have the resources (in troops and political will) to implement the strategy that is necessary to succeed? Unfortunately, no. We do not have enough troops currently to send into Iraq (we are stretching to send the 20,000 additional troops as it is). The only way to get enough troops is to re-institute a draft (barring a miraculous swelling in interest among America's youth's in a career in the military). I honestly cannot see a situation where even an Republican controlled Congress would do that.

If we are not going to do what is necessary to win, we are better off leaving now and re-grouping rather than let Iraq slowly destroy our moral and military. While not a particularly good solution, and one that results in significant loss of American prestige, it may be the better of two evils. Winning the longer war against terror is in my mind more important than saving face.

So... What we have is both sides being disingenuous. The President is unable to drawn down troops because his ego won't let him and the Dems won't support a withdrawal (even though they may believe it is the right thing) because they prefer to win elections over fighting for something that the believe may help the country, but would hurt them politically.

The result: More of the same and the American people are the ones getting screwed.

It's really pitiful, that they can't even formulate an argument beyond:
We're doomed to lose and there are no solutions!

What I can't seem to get out of them though is:
We abandoned the Iraqis in the 90's and we can do it again!
Who cares if we show the world that we ARE a paper tiger!
If I'm gonna pay for something with my taexs, then dammit it's gonna be on foreigners right here in the US!

This isn't about the administration, or how the war started (some can't seem to get out of the past). This is about right now. This is about our desire not only to win, but a genuine desire to create peace in the world. Any perspective other than that is an indication of mental illness.

1) Withdraw Immeditately 15% (this is down 5% from Oct 20 -22)
2) Withdraw in 5 - 12 Months 39 (this is up 5 percent from Oct 20 -22)
3) Withdraw, as many years as needed 31 (this is down 4%)
4) Send more troops: 12% (this is up three %).
5) No opinion: 2% (same as previous poll)

Reading the complete poll: 54% of Americans want us out of Iraqi from now to 12 months time. 43% of Americans still support American presence until the mission is accomplished.

Bottom Line: The poll does not really answer the question whether people are in favor of more troops in a honest fashion.

One item that infuriates me: Ted Kennedy said today that the American people are infront of Congress in the Iraq war. Well Mr. Kennedy, as the majority party why don't you do something about it? When will the Democratic leadership begin advocating immediate withdraw since Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are currently advocating 'stay the course.'

Don’t wait to even see what he has to say tomorrow. Glad you already know-it-all, and have it all figured out. Maybe you ought to be the President?

Followed exactly one paragraph later with:

BTW, the troop increase is coupled with changes on the ground, including infrastructure rebuilding.

Obviously, we are dealing with a true psychic.

How do I know what Bush will propose, LJD? I claim no psychic powers; merely observation of his character. Stubbornly clinging to a particular course of action & supporting world-view, regardless of evidence or effectiveness, has been a hallmark of this Presidency - if you haven't figured that out yet, we're both wasting our time here. Let's just wait and see - I'm sure James will have a thread up about the speech tomorrow. If I'm wrong, you'll see me here eating crow.

And by the way,

I can imagine if we had a Dem leader saying we needed 50k more troops, you would think that were o.k.

You're dead wrong. As Don Henley once said, "Evil is still evil; in anybody's name"