Dems don't want troop surge. Payback to Terrorists and Sheehan?

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future

Adding ten or twenty thousand more U.S. combat troops – mostly soldiers and Marines – isn't going to improve Iraqi willingness to fight their own fight – an imperative if we are to claim victory in this war. While putting 200,000 American or NATO troops on the Iranian and Syrian borders to stop infiltration might make sense, that's "mission impossible" given the size of U.S. and allied armed forces.

A "short-duration surge" in U.S. combat strength also ignores progress that is being made on the ground in places like Al Anbar province – where few of the so-called mainstream media dare to spend much time. In Ramadi, long a hotbed of Sunni terrorism – new National and Provincial police forces are increasingly effective. Calling themselves "The Sons of Al Anbar" – thousands of young Iraqi males have volunteered to defend their cities, villages, homes and families from terrorists.