Eugene Robinson thinks this is a terrible idea, and I agree

I think it would be difficult for anyone to disagree with way that Eugene Robinson states his belief in today's Washington Post:

Here's an idea: Let's send more U.S. troops to Iraq. The generals say it's way too late to even think about resurrecting Colin Powell's "overwhelming force" doctrine, so let's send over a modest "surge" in troop strength that has almost no chance of making any difference -- except in the casualty count. Oh, and let's not give these soldiers and Marines any sort of well-defined mission. Let's just send them out into the bloody chaos of Baghdad and the deadly badlands of Anbar province with orders not to come back until they "get the job done."

I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a terrible idea, arguably the worst imaginable "way forward" in Iraq. So of course this seems to be where George W. Bush is headed.

Under that scenario it is a horrible idea and one that should not be even considered. If there is going to be any increase in troops that should only be done with defined missions, heck the troops that are already there should have more defined missions as far as what is the minimum level of security Iraq needs to have to be able to withdrawl our troops and let the Iraqi's take over.

Robinson continues:

There are more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, and it's unclear what they are supposed to be accomplishing. It should be obvious that to establish security in all of Iraq and disarm the sectarian militias -- to conduct a proper occupation, in other words -- would require a massive infusion of boots on the ground. The Pentagon says that finding even an additional 20,000 to 30,000 troops to send would be a stretch, and officials warn (perhaps a little melodramatically) of the danger that the demands of Bush's war "will break" the U.S. Army.

I recommend reading the full article, he makes some very valid points.