Now on ESPN, the World Championship of Counter-Insurgency....

Perhaps that is a bit glib, but a interesting article in the Weekly Standard points out how the War is Iraq would be better served when viewed through the prism of brinksmanship (e.g. Poker), than fought as a business model as has been done by Rummy & Co.

It might also be instructive reading for those soon to be in power...

Don't throw good money after bad. When you're in a hole, stop digging. If you've been running in the wrong direction, the first thing to do is, turn around. .... All of which seems to apply to Iraq, in spades. A seemingly quick and easy military victory has turned sour. The costs, in blood and treasure, have escalated. Victory looks uncertain and distant. It seems the time has come, if not to cut and run, then surely to cut our losses. If ever the principle of sunk cost applied to warfare, it would seem to apply here. But that instinct is wrong. Warfare is not like investment banking. At precisely the moment an economist might say to stop throwing good money after bad, a wise military strategist might say to double the bet. Why might that be so? For one thing, willingness to raise the stakes often wins the game. Why do insurgent gangs, who have vastly smaller resources and manpower than the American soldiers they fight, continue to try to kill those soldiers? The answer is, because they believe they only have to kill a few more, and the soldiers will leave. They need not inflict a military defeat (which would be impossible, given the strength of the American military)--all they need to do is survive until American voters decide to throw in the towel, which might happen at any moment. The proper response to that calculation is to make emphatically clear that the fight will not end until one side or the other wins, decisively.

Perhaps some Dems will realize that there might a quicker path to actual Victory then the two options that the Conventional Wisdom currently have on the table, and support the deployment of more troops.