Well, if you consider the fact that we need to win the war NOW
It take around 10-12 years to win a guerilla war. So I wouldn't expect this to be over anytime in the next two years.
But if Petraeus thinks this will work, and given he's forgotten more than I know about this kind of stuff..I defer to him.
"It take around 10-12 years to win a guerilla war. "
You are right, so maybe i should recast my logic: I am trying to say that if we dont take care of the short term urgency, the long-term issue of readiness (and of winning the war in Iraq) becomes a sidenote anyway.
If status quo will cause us to lose the war soon as things spin out of control, then a surge NOW is the better approach (with the plan to hand off a more pacified Iraq to a stronger Iraqi forces in 1-2 years, to complete the mission of winning the war) than status quo (or reduction in forces). If our troop levels are lower in 2009-2010 anyway (which is almost certain), readiness and enlistment will not be an issue then.
Sometimes the complaints from Democrats about 'wearing the army out' sound like someone who decides to keep his car in a garage out of fear he'll wear it out. Now is the time to do what it takes to stabilize Iraq and preserve the Iraqi Govt.
The overall strategy in Iraq has not failed because of anything the US has done as much a failure of the new Iraqi Government to acheive the political unification of Iraq. The more we can do ( train and equip Iraqi army) the better, but to fail to stamp out the high level of violence is to make it impossible for the new Iraqi army to fully get traction and keep the peace. It's got to work together.
"But if Petraeus thinks this will work, and given he's forgotten more than I know about this kind of stuff..I defer to him."
Dittos.