It may be that the Democrats have nothing to offer. It may be that Pres. Bush has the best option after all.
See No better idea (Both sides' strategies in Iraq are big ifs with big risks. The president's is worth a try) by Max Boot:
"PRESIDENT BUSH'S plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq has not, to put it kindly, been well received.
But does anyone have a better idea?
Should we just declare defeat and go home? Not even most leading Democrats are willing to go that far. At least not yet.
Most instead talk of gradually drawing down forces and possibly redeploying them either to Iraq's borders or to other bases in the region.
There is something to be said for this strategy. But it also entails huge risks.
If the U.S. is seen as retreating — which is how it would look even if it were labeled "redeployment" — the fragile Iraqi security forces might completely disintegrate.
U.S. advisors with Iraqi units could be imperiled.
An all-out civil war could break out.
Neighboring states such as Jordan could be destabilized by massive refugee flows.
Western Iraq could become a Taliban-style haven for Sunni terrorists.
Southern Iraq could become a launching pad for Shiite extremists bent on liberating their oppressed brethren in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states."
Speaking of the surge, check out
Insurgencies Rarely Win – And Iraq Won’t Be Any Different (Maybe) By Donald Stoker, a professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College’s Monterey Program:
"Myths about invincible guerrillas and insurgents are a direct result of America’s collective misunderstanding of its defeat in South Vietnam.
Everybody in Washington should buy a copy of Pres. Nixon's No More Vietnams!