The surreal Iraq Study Group

It seems to be attack of the Freds this morning. Salon points us to "The real Iraq Study Group", headquartered at the spirtual home of die hard hawks, AEI.

The think tank's plan is not for the lighthearted. The glossy 47-page AEI report, titled "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq," envisions sending 25,000 additional troops to clear Baghdad house by house. Then, as report author Frederick W. Kagan put it, those soldiers would not pull back to their bases but remain stationed in Baghdad neighborhoods, providing security for civilians. "We can clear and hold critical terrain in Baghdad," Kagan told the crowd.

What's with this "we" shit Fred? You going to be going over there to lead the charge? And leaving aside the implausibility of finding 25,000 troops to drop into Baghdad for the indefinite future, hasn't it been the house to house clearing that started all the bad will towards US troops in the first place?

This plan also flips on their head the key ideas emphasized by the Iraq Study Group: that the solution in Iraq is political and not military, and that U.S. forces must transition quickly away from combat roles and into training Iraqis. In the AEI plan, the United States would force a military solution that would, in turn, enable a political compromise. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a plan supporter, called a military victory "the precondition for political, social and economic development."

Oh, maybe Gen. Keane will come out of retirement to lead the charge to "victory."

And there is flat-out disagreement between the war-escalation crowd and a growing chorus of military experts on whether the stressed-out Army can muster this many boots on the ground. While former Secretary of State Colin Powell last month argued against a surge of troops into Iraq because the "active Army is about broken," Kagan said flatly that his analysis shows that the additional tens of thousands of troops "do exist."

Color me unimpressed. Kagan's analysis shows the troops do exist? Maybe he used the Army's recapture list that was recruiting dead and permanently disabled soldiers?

Supporters readily admit that more troops, in the short term, will mean more bloodshed. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, a big supporter of the plan, warned the crowd to expect more casualties and said that things in Iraq "will get worse before they get better."

Isn't it easy to be so casual about carnage when you're not the one who has to suffer the worst? Why are these people even given any creedence? This shouldn't be a news item - it belongs on News of the Weird and Clueless along with thieves who call 9/11 on themselves because they get lost.