I'm with Dean

On the question of whether the President's announced increase of troops to Baghdad is a good idea, disaster or not enough to get the job done, Dean Barnett today responded in his as-usual, inimitable fashion:

The surge strength number comes from Dave Petraeus' estimate of what will be necessary to win Baghdad. Petraeus is breaking Baghdad into nine neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will get a contingent of 2500 Iraqi soldiers (probably ones trained by Petraeus) supported by 600 American troops. This number, the plan figures, will be sufficient to clear the neighborhoods and then hold them. In previous encounters, we would clear and retreat. This is a very significant difference. The total surge into Baghdad, counting Iraqi troops, will be well over 40,000.

Coupled with the changing Rules of Engagement (It's the militia's, stupid!), the increased number of troops provides an opportunity to address security in a way that we have not even begun to approach in the entire time the US has been in Iraq. How people are arguing against this, when it has been a constant criticism for more than 2 years, escapes me.

On the one hand, you've got Democrats arguing against themselves. Instapundit puts it nicely:

I have to say, though, that it's been amusing to see the same people who were recently demanding that Bush send more troops suddenly reverse and criticize him for . . . sending more troops. The question of troop numbers is one where reasonable people can and do differ, but that doesn't mean that lame political oppositionalism isn't recognizable as such.

Of course, it's hardly surprising (or at least shouldn't be) considering these are the same people who lambasted the President's "I'm listening to my General's" approach for two years now only to support the "stay the course" strategy that clearly hasn't worked under Abizaid and Casey. It's enough to make your head spin.

On the other hand meanwhile, I've not yet figured out the likes of Brownback and Hagel: President Bush's decision to deploy 21,500 additional troops to Iraq drew fierce opposition Thursday from congressional Democrats and some Republicans-- among them Sen. Chuck Hagel, who called it "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

In what seemed a testy hearing at times, Secretary of State Rice before the Senate today defended the plan and stood her ground against the likes of Senators Hagel, Biden & Voinovich. Which is of course her job.

As I read the objections voiced in that hearing, I couldn't help but hear Dean's words echoing in the background:

On its face adding 20,000 troops to the 140,000 already there does admittedly seem to be, as my dear old Uncle Willie said this morning, a "band-aid." The problem is most of our congressmen don't look beyond the surface.

They're so convinced they're conclusions are right they can't conceive of a way to win this fight. Thankfully, it's the President who gets to wage war and not the Congress.