The average person-on-the-street in America will not be able to blame a neo-conservative cabal or an incompetent White House. If the soldiers are sent, it will be on the watch of a Democratic legislature and a budding revival of centrism in US politics.

I can only assume you aren’t familiar with our constitution.

The democratic controlled legislature has no say in how the administration chooses to utilize our military other than defunding operations. And as we’ve seen even that isn’t foolproof. For instance, money appropriated for the war in Afghanistan was diverted for preparations for the war in Iraq.

Currently two separate polls show Americans strongly against sending additional troops. CNN has 11% support and Bloomberg has 12% support.

If more troops are sent, it will be because the president orders. Congress can complain, but that’s really all it can do.

Why not put it off for as long as possible, and circulate the myth that we might be able to secure Baghdad? But you are right, we don’t have enough troops, even with a surge to do this. Generals Abizaid and Casey aren’t calling for them, because they know it will further strain the military, and that it won’t make much difference. It was tried last summer, and only made the situation worse.

I now feel that I don’t trust what any politician says about the war, unless they are no longer in office.

I see no hope of eliminating the Mahdi army threat without eliminating their base of support in Sadr city and elsewhere.

And I see little hope of that.

The Mahdi army is estimated at about 60,000, and as mentioned enjoys the support of the local community.

We’re considering a 20,000 to 30,000 man force to combat them? (Although I suppose that would be in addition to whatever combat troops we have already stationed in and araound Baghdad: Does anyone know that number?)

It ssems to me that any US military options that might accomplish the goal of eliminating the Mahdi army are either unpalatable or impossible.

The type of house to house fighting essentially eliminates US technical superiority, I agree that airstrikes into Sadr City are entirely unacceptable.

The only option that it seems to me would work would be a massive and truly overwhelming clear and hold operation which would also disarm the entire non-military population of Baghdad as well as clear the entire country of hidden weapons caches and secure its borders.

No military expert I, but I suspect that would take rather more than 20-30 thousand additional troops.

And since NO-ONE (with the possible exception of Bill Kristol) could conceivably countenance a mission requiring, what, half a million troops?

It’ll never happen.

As I’ve written elswhere, the “surge” is pure politics. Devoid of any strategic or tactical value beyond extending Bush’s chimeric hope for “victory”.