For or against the troop surge
It's funny that a new talking point from Democrats and other critics is that Bush is not listening to his generals, George Casey and John Abazaid, both whom have stated in more or less words that they oppose the new plan. This is ironic because Casey and Abazaid are responsible for the current plan in Iraq, which according to the Democrats is a total failure. Why would they want Bush to listen to failed generals? .... (it is so aggrevating at times...).
No one seems to blame the top brass for military failures anymore, yet it is mostly the top brass' fault. In fact John McCain annouced today that he would oppose General Casey as Army Chief of Staff because of Iraq failures, which is a good start. It seems to me that if the current plan is not working you need to ask the generals to come up with a new plan. If they do not or act too slowly, you need to sack them and find a new general, which is essentially what Bush is finally doing now. Sometimes it is politically difficult to sack generals, who tend to be primadonnas, so you need to work around the system to get rid of them. Lincoln's plan for a "new direction" in 1863 was to appoint Grant as commander of all the various armies. It was Grant, in turn, that devised the plan which ultimately led to the South's defeat (and also required a troop surge).
Next time that people annouce they are against the "surge" it would be more truthful for them to announce that they are against the new commander, Lt. General David Patraeus taking command because he is the one who has come up with the new plan, which requires 20,000 more troops.