Poll: You only have 3 options on Iraq--Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home; what do you choose???

[Selatius]

Poll question: Poll: You only have 3 options on Iraq--Go Big, Go Long, or Go Home; what do you choose???

The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

...

"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.

...

"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.

...

The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.

(Personal comment: Afterward, the long-term trajectory is to aim for only 60,000 US troops, apparently.)

...

That combination plan, which one defense official called "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long," could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. "If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want," the official said.

(Personal comment: If you choose the "Go Long" option or the hybrid, you are likely to commit the next 5 to 10 years being inside Iraq. The question is can you tolerate a 10 year "hot" war?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249_pf.html

[Warpy]

1. There are obviously only two VIABLE choices:

Get out or get thrown out.

The former will be cheaper in terms of lives and equipment, so of course the gummint will choose the latter.

They always do. It's the kind of hubris that kept us in Vietnam after the Tet uprising told everybody who was paying attention that the war was unwinnable.

[Virginia Dare]

2. It's already fucked up beyond repair...

get the Hell out, open up serious dialog with Syria and Iran, cross your fingers, and hope for the best.

Oh, and watch out for flying monkeys.

[Guaranteed]

3. Just get out. The place is screwed.

Leave a force in the area in case the terrorists get really uppity. But get our troops out of there.