Rovinsworld: Add 50,000 more troops to Iraqi Theater

Try this logic out for size. If, when we added 20,000 troops and the strategy of "clear and hold" accomplished stability in those regions, then another 50,000 for a six month all out "super-surge" just might do the trick. Of course, the only way to add these numbers to the theater would mean deploying troops stationed in other parts of the world that would weaken the strategic positions for a short period of time. It would be like moving all your houses and hotels onto Boardwalk and banking on your opponent to land there. Once is all it would take and blammo, game over.

But this is not a game, I know. The real game is going on in congress with the democrats attempting to find some footing as to what's the next best thing to their cut-n-run policy that has failed as miserably as the Move-ON ad in the New York Times. Questioning the integrity of a 4-Star General with impeccable credentials may not have been the most brilliant move the Soro's/Anti-war crowd has made, but it sure puts their feet (stance) firmly in the cement. We know exactly where these cowards stand. And there's a bunch of democrats standing on the edge just waiting to see how deep the hole is before they decide to step in.

President Bush's prime time speech (6pm on the west coast), is said to be endorsing General Petraeus's recommendations:

President Bush will endorse the recommendation of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and and announce this week a withdrawal of almost 30,000 U.S. forces from Iraq by next summer, administration officials say.

Gen. Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, testified Monday before lawmakers that he favored the reduction in forces as long as decisions about future troop levels were postponed until next summer as well.

The president's troop reduction, which will be announced in a nationally televised speech at 9 p.m. tomorrow, will be a few thousand less than the 30,000 advised by Gen. Petraeus, a White House official told The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity. (link)

While the President hates playing the political games that democrats have employed for the past two years to advance themselves on the backs of our military, and an unpopular war, he also may be (grudgingly) looking out for his party's precarious position that has divided this nations ability to stand strong in the face of the bigger picture. The war on terrorism will not fade away with concessions and signs of weakness, (the ardent strategy of the democratic party), and the fact that Osama Bin laden is banking on this "weakness" to re-establish his own losses that have transpired during Petraeus's tenure in Iraq, reminds us all of the "bigger picture". Now if we could just get Bin Laden to step on Boardwalk, (or a one of his own IED's) during a ramped up offensive, maybe our "friends" on the left wouldn't be so willing to wade into the hole of defeat.

(Side note: I also believe the strategies that the democratic party has embraced may very well be a referendum on the impact of the 08' elections. Their promise of a "change in direction" (that they think got them elected on 06") on the prosecution of the war in Iraq did not include the defeat and retreat policies of failure into the hands of Bin Laden, Al-Queda, and the greater war on terrorism.

Catering/embracing the agenda of the anti-war left and the minions/lemmings following the garbage spewed by the likes of Soro's funded Move-On may be what it will take for a once respected party (that put the nations security ahead of their own political ambitions) and embrace political leaders that will not accept defeat at the hands of our sworn enemies.)


Wordsmith at Flopping Aces has a nice set of cartoons describing the state of the democrats "blindness" to the Generals report.

Gatewaypundit has a post up that shows how the democratic leadership is scrambling/editing their comments.