To Increase, or Not to Increase Troops

President Bush now facing more threats from Democrats in Congress on the possibility of increased troop levels in Iraq. Will it really help?

I'm fairly sure most Democrats would do the same thing, only differing in name calling it the 'exit strategy.' The problem is not the level of troops on the ground, the problem is porous borders, much like our own, except Iraq faces illegal immigrant militants. The other is Iraq's beloved radical imams throwing more fuel in the fire.

The problem with those problems is that we don't shoot to kill. We face what Britain faced in Revolutionary America, what Grant faced in the Confederate South. Why did the Brits lose and why did Grant win? Grant didn't try to win the peace while winning the war. There is on the surface similarities with Iraq and the mess of Reconstruction, but really, Reconstruction was more a political mess fueling a security mess. Grant destroyed the South, opposite Colin Powell's notion of limited infrastructure damage. Cultural differences don't much matter when your enemy destroys everything, including your will to fight. Iraq should have been levelled.

We passed on that opportunity, but the enemy is still out there, be it Iranians or radicalized militias. Destruction is the first step in winning the peace. Their will needs to be crushed. Is fifty thousand more PC hindered troops going to help? It will only help the enemy find more targets.