Dean Barnett at the Hugh Hewitt site weighs in with information that actually explains why the surge is not necessarily a pointless and desperate incremental increase in the number of troops. He says there are only 13,000 troops in Baghdad now, so sending most of the 21,500 new troops there would be a huge increase that could make a difference. Plus, we’ve changed the rules of engagement so now we’ll blow up entire blocks to get a single sniper. (Dean doesn’t quite put it that way.)

I appreciate Dan’s explanation, but I’m still skeptical that this will help us get to the vision we’d all like—a stable, democratic Iraq. Why? Fallujah.

By the way, Dean says the Bush administration hasn’t made the Baghdad focus clear because it would require admitting that it’s been a 3-year mistake to have kept troop levels in that city so low. Wouldn’t it have been better politically for Bush to say that we’re doubling the troop strength in Baghdad than to say we’re throwing a mere 12% increase of soldiers into the Iraqi fray? [Tags: iraq surge hugh_hewitt dean_barnett bush politics]

Categories: Uncategorized dw