[baseball_fan]

will this be the plan: commit to sending in enough troops to seize and hold in return for a commitment by the Iraqi government to disarm the militias and to bring more Sunnis into the national unity government?

(Or will the Baker-Hamilton plan be different?)

[Nathan Zachary]

No, the plan will be for Democrasts to give the illusion of having "talks", meanwhile all that will happen is media will lower the cone of silence over Iraq, and all will be well as a result of talks. (When Mookie is finnished his genocide,) They will lay down their arms and become part of Iraqs peaceful unity government.

[True Republican Patriot]

Lieberman is getting closer to being a Republican everyday.
To send in more ttropps with a Strategy of Winning!! that is great!. Olde Russtbucket must have fallen off his chair.

[backtothestreets]

Victory must be made the paramount determining factor under which our military is withdrawn. To insure victory more troops will need to be deployed to fully secure the Iraqi borders, thus reducing outside interference. I've no more faith in the newly elected Congress to achieve this than the last.

[BigBobber]

I'm not sure what the U.S. plan will be, but it is pretty clear what the Iranian/Islamist/MSM plan will be:

Tone down attacks on coalition forces while increasing attacks on pro-government Iraqi civilians.

MSM to report the DemoRat policy is improving conditions in the region.

Rat plan for rapid Iraqi withdrawal secured.

Ratchet up attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan, thereby securing Iran's other flank and providing refuge for the Taliban to retake the country.

[Finalapproach29er]

Stop tying our military's hands, let them break some china and let these mutts know whose boss.

That's all we have to change.

War is about annihilation. If we aren't prepared for that, then there's no point in standing around.

IMO

[M. Dodge Thomas]

But, but I wouldn’t send more troops just for the sake of sending more troops. But I would if it’s tied to a success strategy.

IMO, if Lieberman or anyone else is serious about "stabilizing" Iraq it's unlikely that "more troops" would mean just an additional division or two, it would likely mean 100-200K additional men, which would mean persuading the majority of voters who are currently skeptical about oureffrots to support a much higher level of national commitment, for years, without guarantee of success.

And it seems to me that if politicians, Democratic or Republican, aren't serious about laying their political futures on the live to attempt to build that support, then they are just burning through American troops to avoid admitting defeat - which is where we have been for the last 18 months.