ugh.

The thing that most boggles my mind about this most recent incarnation of the ongoing Iraq debate is the way that it is still being described in the media as some sort of partisan squabble. Its all "Bush says this," "Democrats do this in response". Meanwhile, the substantive issues (which one hopes are driving the political squabble, altough its hard to say these days) are being ignored as if they do not matter in the least, when in fact they have never been higher.

What has yet to be said publicly, at least to my knowledge, is that this debate over the Presidents "troop surge strategy" is not just another dems v repubs power play. It reflects important questions being raised over our Iraq strategy.

What can the U.S. hope to accomplish in Iraq? At this point, is there any way to avoid a civil war (which, like it or not, we bear some responsibility for starting no matter what the politicians like to say)? How do we know when are troops are still risking their lives for a concrete purpose and at what point are they in harms way only to defend one man's rep as the "liberator of Iraq"?

But most importantly, the question that NEEDS to be voiced right now (by someone in an actual position of authority), is how a surge of only 20,000 is supposed to do anything other than provide more cannon fodder for a war that we were never going to win. Had the president not already decimated our military, had he listened to his commanders and called for a surge of 300,000 or so back when we actually had that many troops to deploy, I think there would be much less democratic opposition. With 300,000, there is a strong possibility of accomplishing something.

I care about the men and women in the armed forces. I also care about the people in Iraq, who are probably about to be caught in a bloody civil war. If there was anything we could do to help them, I would be behind our president 110%. However, 20,000 troops (as far as I can tell, I am no military expert. just a follower of common sense and logic) will probably not help either. And so I see no point in endangering further troops, or the regions where they will probably have to be taken from (I have heard Afghanistan, ect.)

Why can't the democrats articulate this properly? And what ever happened to "news analysis"? Spin isn't everything guys. Sometimes people want to know what is really going on.