Yes, sending more troops is probably the only sane policy. I'll get back to the probably a little later.

Why? Because the Middle East is the most strategic region in the world today; in other words it's not South East Asia. We have so many vested interests and long standing allies in the region, that even if the entire United States rallied around the idea of ending US involvement in the Middle East, it would still be several decades before our interests could be disentangled. The point is that if Iraq completely flys apart we will still have to deal with the consequences of a failed state; it is not as if we can just pull out and forget about the disaster that is Iraq. What happens there will continue to affect us even after we leave.

What could be potential consequences of a withdrawal? The Iraqi National Government has basically no authority outside of the green zone of Baghdad. What authority it has there is very tenuous. The reason the government hasn't completely collapsed is because of the support of two groups: the Americans, and the Shiite militias. American support of the government is able to keep the influence of the Shiite militias to a controlled level (although the Saddam execution video would suggest that we are increasingly no longer able to keep such influence controlled). If we withdraw all support of the government however, so that "the Iraqi's can do what they ought to be doing for themselves", we will leave behind a power vacuum that will almost certainly be filled by organizations like Moqtada Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. If the Shiite Militias are able to get control of the government we can almost be assured of "ethnic cleansing" of the minority Sunni, and possibly Kurd, population by the majority Shiites. Even if we are so anxious to end involvement in Iraq that we are willing to accept such a humanitarian disaster as an outcome, we have to consider the repercussions of leaving what will likely amount to genocide in our wake. Namely, Iraq's Sunni neighbors (like Egypt) will unlikely be willing to watch fellow Sunnis be slaughtered. An intervention by Sunni states will almost certainly provoke a response by Shiite Iran to protect Shiite interests in Iraq. As you can probably see, a regional war is a very distinct possible outcome of Iraq completely coming apart. That would cause a huge humanitarian crisis in the region and would provoke economic disruption around the world (given that the global economy needs Middle Eastern oil to run). Such a war would serve no one's interests, and it is in fact in everyone's interest to try to prevent it.

One, when they say 'Democrats will raise taxes,' you say 'we have to because someone spent all the money in the world cutting Paris Hilton's taxes and not killing Osama bin Laden.' In just six years the national debt has doubled. You can't keep spending money you don't take in. That's not even elementary economics, that's just called don't be Michael Jackson.

Two, when they say the 'terrorists want the Democrats to win,' you say 'are you insane? George Bush has been a terrorist's wet dream.' He inflames radical hatred against America and then runs on offering to protect us from it. It's like a guy throwing shit on you and then selling you relief from the flies.

Three, when they say 'cut and run' or 'defeatocrat,' you say 'Bush lost the war, period.' All this nonsense about the violence is getting worse over there because they're trying to influence the election, no, it's getting worse because you drew up the post-war plans on the back of a cocktail napkin at Applebees. And of course Democrats want to win, but that's impossible now that you've ethnically-cleansed the place by making it unlivable -- just like you did with New Orleans.

Four, when they say that actual combat veterans like John Kerry are 'denigrating the troops,' you say 'you're completely full of shit.' Remember when Al Gore caught all that flack for sighing and moaning during that debate? Yeah, don't do that. Just say, 'you're full of shit.' If I was a troop, the support I would want back home would mainly come in the form of people pressuring Washington to get me out of this pointless nightmare. That's how I would feel supported. So, when they say 'Democrats are obstructionists,' you say 'you're welcome.' Sometimes good people have to intercede to prevent dire consequences. You wouldn't like to think of me as an obstructionist, but what if Roseanne had offered to sing? So I would be happy to frame this debate as a fight between the obstructionists and the enablers. There's your talking point. Vote Republican and you vote to enable George Bush to keep ruling as an emperor -- a retarded child emperor, but an emperor.

So Democrats, you've got four days to get out there and close. And it's not about slogans this time, although when it comes to slogans, the only one I'm prepared to accept from the opposition is, 'The Republican Party: We're sorry.'