[Preechr]

That quote stuck out like a sore thumb for me, too.

I mean, of course professional politicians believe the only answer to this or anything else is political. Ask a diplomat, and he'll tell you the way out is through diplomacy. A guy that works at Burger King would probably say piping hot french fries are the answer.

Adding more troops may or may not improve the situation, as I said before: it all depends on what you have them doing when you get them there. The letter seems to indicate the only thing a Democrat believes a soldier is good for is blowing shit up and shooting people, yet that's only the focus of a very small part of the troops we have over there. Most of our soldiers are serving in a civil authority capacity, ie: "training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror," not to mention getting schools and other municipal building and reconstruction projects accomplished.

That said, removing troops all by itself is surely no sort of plan for victory. So much of what modern democrat socialists follows this sort of childish non-logic... Social Security will work SOMEHOW simply because we want it to... Welfare programs must work because we believe in them... We can just leave Iraq and the Iraqis will somehow figure it out for themselves. Logic is replaced by emotion. I'm sorry, but wishing you have something doesn't get it for you in the real world.

But, now that we've got "phased-redeployment" out on their side of the table, what's the rest of the plan? What if we do that and it gets worse over there? What do we do then? Start over and re-invade?