"There is no military solution to this war. Our troops can help suppress the violence, but they cannot solve its root causes. And after all the troops in the world won't be able to force Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their differences, and forge a lasting peace. In fact, adding more troops will only push this political settlement further and further into the future, as it tells the Iraqis that no matter how much of a mess they make, the American military will always be there to clean it up. That is why I believe we must being a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and the people of Iraq and others who have a stake in stabilizing the country - that ours is not an open-ended commitment. They must step up. The status quo cannot hold."
Ok, I would like to discuss this a bit.
First, I agree that the situation over there is more a diplomatic than a military situation. Our troops can NOT solve the root causes of why the insurgents are bombing buses and day care centers and whatever. The troops can NOT get the various Muslim groups to the bargaining table. These are definitely jobs left to the diplomats. However, so far, the diplomats, be it by the internal government, or external, including our state department, have not presented any viable solutions. It would appear to me that if a viable solution were given to these groups, perhaps they would try to come to some sort of an agreement. It COULD happen, it has before. But unfortunately, nobody has come up with any ideas.
A non-military solution must be presented. SOMEONE has to figure something out. Escalating the situation and adding additional troops will not and can not assist the effort. The more soldiers we send, the more we could lose.
Sadly, the situation will probably still be going on in 2008 and we need a leader with good foreign policy experience. Honestly, we do not need to be looking for (for lack of a better term) a "war time" president.
Also posted at Concerned Citizen