by CKR
Wasn't that what President Bush said he would do with regard to Iraq?
Maybe this is what he means by changing course. He's not going to listen to those guys any more. They haven't been increasing the rate of success by enough lately.
Hasn't the could-have-won-in-Vietnam faction, of which President Bush and certainly Vice President Cheney are charter members, been saying for the last forty years or so that the problem was LBJ's direct mucking with tactics for political reasons?
Today's military is asking for a strategy, according to the article I've linked, not just how many more troops to deploy. Their thinking must still be stuck with that old fogy Clausewitz: war is the continuation of politics by other means. What is the political objective in Iraq? We've had more justifications from the White House than a multiple-choice question on a Politics and Government 101 quiz. And President Bush has been more than circumspect lately in letting us know what this week's objective is, beyond the usual call for a stable and friendly government.
And he might talk to Condi about that stability thing. She's still saying things like "I don't see how the United States of America can ever back off of that commitment in the search somehow for stability -- which I am quite certain will be a false stability."
So yes, let's shake things up a little more and tell those folks in Baghdad that stability and electricity aren't all they're cracked up to be.