More on troop escalation

One of the most frustrating things about all this talk of escalation is that the debate is over whether or not we should add more troops instead of what mission the troops will ostensibly be attempting. It's not, "Will 30,000 more troops be able to accomplish Mission X," but rather "Will 30,000 troops improve the situation" or quell the violence or some such thing. Haven't we all recognized that the current strategy in Iraq is failing? Hasn't just about everybody admitted that, including the two-years-behind-everything pundit class? And if so, how has the conversation gone from changing strategy to changing how many young men and women are on the ground trying to implement that failed strategy?

It's really a remarkable thing that the President has done by countering demands for a strategy change with floating a potential troop escalation. The debate over actual strategy has been virtually sidelined, and now if he does increase troops, he'll try to argue that it's a change in course, and even if he doesn't raise troop levels, he's managed to delay by a couple months any real action, and that debate will start up where it was months ago. I mean, we're even seeing people say that no politicians should offer their own views except in response to a plan from the President! Ridiculous.