A letter to the NYTimes pegs Bush's motives...

[kentuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/l10iraq.html

<snip>
To the Editor:

At the risk of giving the president more credit than he deserves, I would suggest that shrewd politics shaped his “surge strategy” as much as the dysfunctional traits suggested by Paul Krugman.

President Bush’s request for more troops presents the Democrats with a true dilemma. If they support the surge, then they share the blame when the strategy fails. And if they do not support it — say, by cutting off money — then the president can gleefully blame them for undercutting his “winning strategy” just when it was going to turn the tide in our favor. Jay Kirschenbaum

New York, Jan. 8, 2007

[NewJeffCT]

1. They already admitted it was political

Wasn't it Time or Newsweek that quoted an Administration official as saying the escalation was political and wasn't going to work?

I think Team Bush basically focuses on the domestic political front when it comes to foreign policy. Reality & consequences be damned.

[Avalux]

2. Dems have to play this very carefully -

first of all, they can't stop the surge before it happens. They must vocally oppose the surge, and even demand a vote on it, however. Cutting funding will only give Republicans ammunition - I heard a Republican say this morning that Democrats want to take bullets from our troops. Of course they don't, but that's a glimpse of what's to come. Unfortunately, I think Democrats may need to let dipshit play out his surge; our troops are being used as political pawns and there will be more loss of life, but there doesn't seem to be any other way to eventually stop him.

:(

[AndyTiedye]

4. In Which Case We'll Have to Bend Over For The Next "Surge" and the One After That…

The Repiglicans can keep on playing that game forever.

We have to stop this.

Yes, we'll get swiftboated, and it will be far worse than last time. There is nothing we can do about that.

We have to use what power we have, while we have it, to end this war.

[janx]

5. They are well aware of this and

are looking at ways to deal with it. They won't neglect the troops currently in Iraq, but they will not approve of extra money to send and support the "surge."

[peacetalksforall]

3. This act by Cheney and PNAC is about satisfying Christian radicals and saving those

corporations who are already invested in Iraq. They need warm soldier bodies to protect the corporate contractors and those brave employees who oversee the operations that exist in a payola situation. But, it may be boomerang time.