Bush's new plan

In case you missed Bush's speech on the "new" Iraq strategy, you can find the transcript here. The big question left unanswered is whether 20,000 troops can make up for coming into Iraq with some 200,000 fewer troops than General Shinseki and others felt would be necessary to have adequate security. Bush notes most of these troops will go to Baghdad, to help secure the city. But what about the destabilized areas in the rest of the country?

The American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, just released a report that said that U.S. troops need to increase by 30,000 per year for the next two years to safely secure the country.

Ironically, the smaller surge proposed by President Bush could still put a strain on the army. To have 20,000 more troops in Iraq, the Army will either have to extend deployments or return troops before their leave is up.

The surge also goes against the advice of the Joint Chiefs, who feel that any surge in troops should be large and long-lasting, to guarantee an impact.

Conclusion? The surge was the most political palatable option for staying the course when so many Americans want to bring the troops home. And yet, it may be one of the dumbest ideas because it will put more troops in the line of fire without necessarily securing the country. Steve Sack (once again) may have said it best: