They're listening too much to "old Army" types like W. Clark.

This is all rather transparent, isn't it? The Democrats and the left in general are simultaneously arguing for more troops while doing their best to suppress enlistment through irresponsible "quagmire" rhetoric. In other words, they're trying to push things towards implementing a draft, and THAT is the only hope they have of stirring up anti-war sentiment among the general public...

This does seem bizarre. Everyone is saying the troops should come home now but then they say we need to send more troops? B may be right - it is probably a way to try and force the draft.

b,
You beat me to the post. This is a very obvious plan, and like most of theirs, doomed to failure.

It's not an "insurgency."

Sorry, b. You give the Demorats too much credit. They can't think that far ahead. They are the party of NO - pure and simple. If the President says no more troops are needed, they disagree. The moment he might change his mind and asks for more troops, they will denounce that decision a few moments later.

If the terrorists were only attacking military or strategic targets, this could have some validity, though I might disgree. But it's ridiculous considering that the terrorists have sunk to targeting Iraqi civilians in coffeehouses and the like. It's completely impossible for us to have a US bodyguard for every Iraqi civilian (and that would cause resentment), but as long as the terrorists are willing to strike at any Iraqi civilians, that's what we would need to absolutely prevent all attacks. OTOH, such targeting of civilians has guaranteed that, as an insurgency with some hope of taking over the government, the terrorists have failed.

Would more "boots on the ground" make Israel "insurgent"-proof?