Bush is considering a 'surge' in US troops to Iraq. For a long time, I thought it was a good idea. In fact, I thought it was the only realistic solution to quell the sectarian violence.
Now, I'm not so sure.
I don't think that the US can realistically maintain an increase in troops in Iraq (I believe this is why it's called a 'surge,' it is not meant to be permanent).
I think that an increase in the number of troops will lead to more US casualties.
I think that increasing the number of troops may be effective, for a while, but won't lead to any permanent results.
I actually think that the US would do well to start either withdrawing troops from Iraq, or a massive redeployment to Kuwait. I think that the Iraqis are embroiled in a civil war (call it what you want), and that they've got their own ........ to sort out. Hussein was a bad guy, he's gone, regardless of whether you agreed with it, but I don't think US troops should have to babysit Iraqi civilians. It's not clear who is perpetuating the violence, who is in charge, where the front line is, or why we're there.
I just finished the Iraq study group report (a quick read, something like 90 pages). There are some 70+ suggestions made in it, most of it is mundane reading. What became exceptionally clear to me after reading it is that there is no military or economic solution that will work. They speak of 'political reconciliation' as the only realistic step towards progress in Iraq, which essentially means everyone over there getting along and playing nice. I don't believe this will happen until they have their little civil war. We had ours, it's their turn.
My attitude would be different if I believed there was some military or economic solution which could 'easily' make a difference.
Not exactly about the troop surge, but still related: