I don't understand why many on this forum support this surge of troops. General Jack Keane and Frederick Kagan, who co-authored this surge wanted at least 30,000 to 50,000 troops instead of the 21,500 to be there 18 months or so. Defence secretary Robert Gates, told congressmen that the troop build-up was expected to last "a matter of months" - rather than the 18 months proposed by Gen Keane. Also to put confidence in Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (a Shiite) to crack down on the Shiite militias, is a mistake. He has not delivered in the past and is constrained by the same people he represents. For instance Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army or militia represent 30 seats in the Iraqi 275 seat parliament. I can't see how this plan will succeed.
Given the small size of the US Army and the severe political constraints in the Washington theater of war, 21,500 extra troops for nine months may be the biggest surge we can afford to mount. Defense appropriations will present a very nasty challenge to the Bush Administration, and the financial burden of the terror war may pass from the taxpayers to the troops and their families. Bush also must avoid impeachment; a Nancy Pelosi administration will not hesitate to surrender. Maliki faces onerous political constraints of his own. The Bush plan represents our last best hope to achieve stasis in the proxy war against Iran, Syria, and others while we await some event to trigger a political opening that might permit brief action toward victory.