Dan Drezner sees through the flim-flam:
[W]hat Bush is proposing now is exactly what happened in Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia. In each case:
1) The United States suffered a pivotal attack that altered their perception of the enemy (the Tet Offensive, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, and the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident);
2) The American response at some point after the attack was a show of escalation, not de-escalation (Nixon/Kissinger escalation in Vietnam, naval and air bombardments in Lebanon, six-month force expansion in Somalia);
3) After this display of strength, the U.S. withdraws;
4) Despite the increase in forces and retaliatory attacks, everyone recognizes the withdrawal for what it was.
I see very little reason to go through this charade again … but I’m willing to listen to commenters who disagree. To them, I must ask – how will the surge option be anything other than a more grandiose version of the Clinton administration’s response to the Somalia bombings?
The Dish 