Steny Hoyer on FOX New Sunday speaking on President Bush's proposal to "surge" troops into Iraq:

HOYER: First of all, we see this simply as an escalation and not a change. Essentially, we've gone up and down on troop levels before. We did so just recently. And when we sent troops into Baghdad, we sort of had community-by-community success but a general escalation, both in violence, sectarian confrontation, and loss of life.

So we don't see this as a new policy, and I think it's going to be greeted with great skepticism.

HUME: You don't see it as a change, but, on the other hand, adding troops, changing -- the command is changing. Abizaid has moved out. Casey has moved out. General Petraeus, generally pretty highly regarded, will be the main man there. Vice Admiral Fallon will be the new CENTCOM commander. And yet you say no change here?

HOYER: Let me except (ph) the fact that these are all good people, but the fact that we have a new secretary of defense or the fact that we have a new CENTCOM commander or Petraeus on the ground in Iraq, if the administration's policy remains the same, then we're going to have the same-old-same-old.

Hoyer is correct that the "same-old-same-old" in Iraq led by new names and more troops isn't going to get the job done from either a military or a strategic standpoint. And from a political standpoint, a surge of troops without a significant change in tactics is simply a ratcheting up of a policy that is working strongly for Democrats.
The number of troops in Iraq is secondary as long as our military remains in a defensive posture. Given the current political environment and the evisceration of the Lieberman wing of the Democratic Party, the U.S. public does not have the tolerance or the patience for the continuation of a defensive military posture in Iraq.

If the President wants to regain the support of the American people for his policy in Iraq he has to let the U.S. military go on the offensive. And if regaining an offensive footing is impossible due to political correctness, a fear of the media, or simply the reality on the ground then the focus needs to turn to how we can best manage a tactical retreat in Iraq.

Of course this retreat won't bring an end to the war - a point that is lost on the anti-war left and the "Fortress America" right - as Iraq is simply one front in the larger war against Islamic Jihadism. But a well-managed retreat would be preferable to a continuation of the status-quo policy of the last 18 months, dressed up under new commanders and 20,000 more troops.

Given the multiplicity of factors and the looming 2008 election cycle, the best move President Bush may have is a surge of troops, a massive offensive, and a hand-off to the Iraqi government followed by an orderly but prompt withdrawal of most U.S. troops.