Except when they don't agree with me, of course, in which case I'll ignore them too.
The debate over sending more U.S. troops to Iraq intensified yesterday as President Bush signaled that he will listen but not necessarily defer to balky military officers, while Gen. John P. Abizaid, his top Middle East commander and a leading skeptic of a
so-called surge, announced his retirement.
140,000 combat troops can't subdue Baghdad, but an additional 30,000 will? Throwing extra guys into the fire with a vaguely defined mission will magically end the futile cycle of patrolling, flushing out the bad guys from this house or that block, only to come back and do it again the next night and the next night and the night after that, ad inf.? Please forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical that "the surge," the oh-so-ballsy "double down," will do anything more than exactly squat to improve the situation over there for anyone. Bush is grasping at straws and, in the process, shoving away the few actual life rings still bobbing in the water within his reach. How many more guys are going to die before he runs up against the reality that we can't "win" there?