I'm sorry, but an argument that primarily consists of "I haven't a goddam clue what other practical way there is to win this war, but I insist there has to be one, so we have to change course" doesn't hold water either logically or practically.

We are on a path with a steep cliff on both sides. You can say we should back up (bail out of Iraq)--which would be a disaster in my opinion, but at least is a real point of view. You can bitch about how we shouldn't have taken this path in the first place, which is about as productive as me wishing that Roosevelt hadn't socialized retirement, but is also at least a point of view. But you can't bitch that we should be changing to another path unless you can point to one close enough to jump to.

There is no magic bullet. There is no "international support" not already on board that would somehow materialize if only the Right Person asked for it. There aren't an additional hundred thousand troops to deploy. There is no way to kill only insurgents without touching any civilians at all. There aren't reasonable people in the insurgency who want to make a reasonable deal.

I believe that what we are doing--attacking the Baathists while trying to get the Iraqis to carry more of the load while at the same time creating a government that most Iraqis will consider legitimate--is as good an idea as anyone else can come up with. Not an easy task, but possible.

And think about this: what if it works? Under Saddam, the chances of a free Iraq were absolute zero. At least now they're measurable.