"Do-Over" Number 814 : Send More Troops
A solution for an overstretched military becomes stretching the military even more

The President has expressed his desire to sent 15,000 - 30,000 additional troops to Iraq, even though the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose additional troops fearing the cost would far outweigh the benefits.

General John Abizaid, who replaced the rockskull Tommy Franks in Iraq has in recent weeks expressed his opposition to additional troops levels as well. Now Abizaid is to retire, and Abizaid's early departure could make it far easier for the White House to demand for a "surge" in troops.

The Democrats, who know they were elected because the American people demanded change in Iraq are showing little backbone in standing up against the President's desire to send more troops to Iraq. By change, I don't think we meant we wanted to dig our heels in even further...

Rumsfelds replacement, Robert Gates went to Baghdad, but refused to address wether or not the US should send additional troops, stating "all options are on the table,"

Meanwhile there are are ideological optimist who are so bent on something they can call "victory" and so determined to create a "legacy" for George W. Bush that they are unwilling to discuss the negative repercussions which could result from sending more troops to Iraq.

This is the sort of short sightedness that ushered in this new age of terrorism in Iraq.

Before, during and after the invasion, the Bush Administration and it's lackey's refused to hear any evidence or opinions regarding Iraq that were contrary to their own, therefore they were incredibly inept at controlling the situation once it inevitably spun out of control.

Our military is already stretched thin, an admission made by many now that we are entering year four in Iraq with little to no progress made.

There are real threats out there, countries with nuclear weapons, countries that want nuclear weapons and powers that are beginning to rival our own.

Could have, would have, should have, but didn't send more troops in the first place. It's a little late in the game to be calling for a "do-over". What would be done with these troops in the event of a so called "surge"?

Put them on street corners so angry Iraqi's, insurrectionist and terrorist can target them?

Another "shock and awe" to kill a few bad guys and a lot of civilians to get the Iraqi's even more fired up and give the terrorist even more recruiting powers?

What are you going to do with those troops other then send them off to die? The fairy tale is over, there is no direction, there is no mission.

Motion should not be confused with action! As Benjamin Franklin once said.