So, the wise old men of David Broder's beloved Iraq Study Group testified to the Senate today. From what I gathered from CNN coverage just now, they support sending more troops to Iraq (James "Give it a chance!" Baker more than Hamilton), but they warn that nothing will improve unless there's also diplomacy with Iran and Syria.
Personally, I don't really understand their obsession with diplomacy with Iran and Syria. It's probably a good idea on its own merits, though what it has to do with Iraq I'm not sure.
Still, they say they support sending more troops to Iraq. Then they say it needs to be accompanied by things which won't happen.
I just don't understand this game anymore.
...adding, of course regional diplomacy is going to be necessary, I just don't think it's particularly useful until the people in charge acknowledge a few elements of reality that they are unwilling to acknowledge. Their unwillingness to engage in diplomacy is a problem, but there isn't much point in engaging in Iraq-related diplomacy until they're willing to see reality a bit more clearly.