Those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success.

You've got the guy who runs all of the guys who understand how to deal with problems like this demanding that legislators develop an alternative military strategy. Legislators are not military strategists. Part of taking responsibility for your mistakes involves being able to defend your proposals! There are hard questions that ought to have good answers before we escalate this conflict. As far as I can see those questions have not been answered.

1. What does domestic politics have to do with your troop levels. If more troops were all thats needed why weren't they being deployed months ago?
2. What does domestic politics have to do with sectarian barriers to entering neighborhoods? (Malaki is scared because the possibility of our leaving is on the table might be an acceptable answer.)
3. Do you actually have a way to get more troops?
4. Are those troops appropriately trained and equipped to handle the mission? How is that possible when you are deploying them on such an aggressive schedule?
5. Can that mission succeed.... To a point, is there a military solution to quelling the violence in Iraq? Will the sectarian groups back down in the face of more American military presence, or does a solution require a diplomatic agreement between the political leaders of the various factions? Is there any reason to beleive that Iran, now quite emboldened, has any interest at all in doing anything but continuing to instigate trouble? Is there any reason to beleive that operating a crackdown can have anything more than a cosmetic impact on the levels of violence if the fundamental interersts driving the conflict are not resolved?

Bush defends new Iraq strategy against strong opposition on Capitol Hill - International Herald Tribune