I know the troop surge has been talked about a good bit since the focus on "changing" strategies in Iraq. I've heard lately that a troop surge is a likelihood. Personally, I think it is a BAD idea and a lose\lose proposition.

1) fighting an insurgency and guerilla tactics cannot be crushed by brute force. All insurgents - especially those willing to die for the cause - have to do is set off bombs and create mayhem. They are well funded and well supported and will be able to continue to create havoc in the streets. There is no amount of additional personnel or firepower that can crush this.

2) part of the problem in Iraq in my view is that we are trying to win the war "nicely". The military has always been severely constrained by our desire to wage it in a politically correct manner. Sending more troops in this constrained way is a sure fire way to get more troops killed without any positive results.

3) the only way to "win" with a troop surge is to significantly reduce the violence during the surge and after. With the media trumpeting any and every violent event from the insurgency, there is NO WAY that a troop surge will be deemed a victory.

From my perspective, we'd be better off throwing away our politically correct, constrained method of warfare. Sure, the media and the rest of the world would be outraged. But most Americans would accept an actual quelling of the violence as a result. I mean we dropped a damn atomic bomb on Japan TWICE and suffer very little over any consequences of that action. I'm not suggesting we nuke anyone - I'm just saying if we want to stop the violence in Iraq getting tougher rather than sending over more politically correct troops would be more successful.