'...Abizaid was pressed by Senator John McCain, from the Republican side, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, from the—well, from what?—to explain why it wouldn’t be a good idea to send at least another 20,000 American troops to Baghdad in order to prevent defeat.
It’s an idea that appeals to neoconservatives, above all, who are pained to see their vaunted Iraqi experiment collapse in failure. The most vocal proponent of the idea is Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, though Kagan wants to send 50,000, not 20,000, and fast.
And apparently a review, now nearing completion under General Peter Pace at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is lurching in that direction. According to the Washington Post, Pace’s review is leaning toward the idea of a year-long commitment of several tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers and Marines, on top of the 150,000 there now, in a last-ditch effort to secure Baghdad and Anbar province. Once that task is neatly done, they’d start bringing the boys home.
It shouldn’t need saying, but it does: This won’t work. Going Long In Iraq
'...Bush's only chance at preventing Iraq from descending further into hell may depend on his ability to admit he, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest really, really messed up big-time. He ought to acknowledge the errors of his ways and explicitly ask the rest of the world to assist him in finding a path out. It seems clear nothing resembling a resolution in Iraq can be forged without pressure from the outside—and that means pressure from states within the region and from states with ties and interests in the area. It may be impossible to obtain sufficient assistance from other nations—such as Iran and Syria—but trying to do so is necessary. The goal: to bring some degree of stability to Iraq, as the United States disengages.'Iraq's Reality Bandwagon
