Cheers on your response, your arguement certainly makes sense. However I believe that the US can ill afford another combat operation failure on the scale of Iraq, even a shift to plan B, not because of the implications in political shift but towards the American image over the last 60 years on the world stage. This would just deepen the US position in Iraq to one of long term occupation, already the military has plans for 11 or so permanent bases across the country with the Baghdad green zone being the heaviest developed.

It's interesting that you mentioned Battle of Algiers, yes the fact is the the French forces managed to stop the terrorist activities, however you fail to mention that through out that same time a political shift was taking place that ultimately countered the military successes achieved. This is the same thing that is happening right now at Congress, House and Senate.

The fact is yes, force deployment will end this situation because US forces are the best trained, the best equipped and are actively seeking new ways of countering the insurgency. But this is only the response now, there was no solid plan post capture of Baghdad because the administration in same ways probably hoped for a stand off with a limited Iraqi army not expecting the force collapse that occurred, a replay of Gulf War 1. There was no plan, well there was one but it got thrown out by the politicians.

However this would come at a severe political cost, the entire shift will change, the political process will paralyzed to use the same force responses if another event on 9/11 occurs because you will have those who will recall Iraq and Vietnam in the same breath, we cannot afford such a position with the American people who might not understand the wider implication of keeping a stabilized American presence in the Gulf.

I do not believe in pursuing a war that was put in motion by people who do not understand the local play out of the area. Bush Senior knew the country was too unstable to go into outright, his failure was not keeping up US force support in the same way that the Taliban goverment was toppled by support of the Northern Alliance.

In the mind set of the Arab people they draw parallels between this war and the Russian Chechen occupation that follows the exactly the same steps. There is a continuous force deployment by Russia, still peace and stability eludes them... they also occupy Chechnya because of it's importance to the oil supply.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Dispatches-The-Dirty-War-in-Chechnya

There is no clear plan for the deployment of the extra 21,000 troops. Most will be stationed in Iraq and the Anbar province. There is no additional task given to these other then blanket security operations which would only mean exposing the troops to more hostile fire.

At the same time you are dropping an influx of troops into a country where 70% of the population looks upon your forces as occupiers. All that would do is unify the resistance and insurgency against coalition forces even more.

Either way, what will that force increase do without a clear working plan? Are US forces going to be used to actively suppress the Sunni or Shi'a militias? Are they going to be used to force a negotiation?

I agree that a force addition looks good on paper, but it looked good on paper back in Vietnam, the additional force elements there were just not enough to back out of what turned into a civil war. The same situation is being repeated here.

If the 21,000 force commitment fails. What then? The US will have no maneuvering and there will be another crushing morale plummet as US forces will pull out like they did in South Vietnam.

In reply to your comment:
“A couple comments.

As Rickegee said, McCain is in the race to win. His shift to the right in order to make it through the primaries can only be expected after what he experienced at the hands of the Bush campaign in NC in 2000. At any rate, his compromising of principles in order to get elected is the exact same behavior displayed by his chief opponent: Hilary.

q[I find his views on the surge dis-speakable even though hes a veteran of the Vietnam war.]q

He's been for more troops since the rioting after the fall of Baghdad. The fundamental element of any counterinsurgency operation is security. Since the enemy is unconventional you cannot destroy him outright, but with sufficient security you can deny his ability to operate freely. The denial of free operation is the foundation from which an insurgency can be defeated; without it, the insurgency will only grow. McCain's position since 2003 has been that there are not sufficient troops to provide that essential level of security, and accordingly additional forces should be deployed to Iraq.

At this stage in the game, the 21,000 troop surge is all the extra manpower we have to commit. It probably won't be sufficient but it's worth a try. The National Intelligence Estimate released today makes it pretty damn clear that a withdrawal conducted over the next 12-18 month would cause the situation in Iraq to worsen precipitously, further destabilizing the region. In the face of that we have to find some way to stabilize Iraq, possibly through a soft partition or by some other means. Having 5 additional brigades in Iraq at the very least will give us additional flexibility. If they are able to improve the security situation sufficiently to allow for political and economic developments, so much the better. If not, the additional forces provides flexibility for whatever different strategy we attempt to pursue. ”