All In.

Where have all the statesmen gone?

Though President Bush is a lame duck at this point, and though is approval ratings are dismal, and though the Bush-haters have gone from the minority to the majority, he is still the President. He is still the Commander-in-Chief. He is still our head of government and head of state. Tonight, for better or worse, he will be the President, not a lame duck.

Every official and news outlet says the same thing: 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

By all accounts the Liberals in Congress are going to try to block funding for this measure. The Constitutionality of that move is highly questionable. For more practical purposes, it is unlikely that the Liberals have the votes in Congress to do such a thing. What has been disappointing to hear is the blatant political maneuvering and emotionalism dripping from the lips of members of both parties who oppose this move.

There are several opponents of this move who are rational, well reasoned, intelligent, and who seem to be genuinely concerned about doing what is best for America. Unfortunately, those people are in the minority.

Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Olympia Snow (yes, a GOPer) have all been guilty of this emotional politicization. Reid, the Senate Majority leader, said he would only consider an increase in troop levels if the President agreed to start withdrawing troops in six months. I can understand that sentiment. However, I can't agree with that reasoning. Though it sounds nice, it assumes failre and is simplistic in nature. In short, it is political pandering, not statesmanship.

Please hear me out before you think I am just bashing anyone who opposes sending more troops.

There are many ways this thing can play out, but let's take the extremes on both ends and weigh them against each other. On one side: we send in 20,000 troops, they become targets and are resented by ordinary Iraqis; violence escalates further; U.S. casualties go up by 20% (there will be about 16% more troops there), and the troop surge is a miserable failure; President Bush will have played his hand and lost; There will be no choice but to set the date for a withdrawal. Cost: over six months about 900 American casualties and probably $50-75 billion dollars (very rough guesses).

On the other side: The troop surge is successful in quelling the violence in Baghdad, Sadr City, and Anbar Province; terrorists are driven from major cities; Sunni and Shia militias are disarmed; neighborhoods become safe again; political stability is achieved, freeing Sunnis and Shiites to compromise without bloodshed; Iraq becomes (long-term) a stabilizing force in the region.

Is one American life lost a tragedy? Yes. Are people justified in wanting to save the lives of our soldiers? Yes. Is this a costly gamble? Yes.

If we bottom line this proposition, what we must ask is this: do the rewards outweigh the risks? There is no higher stakes game going on in the world. This is no time to make emotion-driven decisions. Saying, "sure you can have troops if you pull out in six months" is pure politics. It assumes failure. It does not truly account for the difficulty and gravity of the situation. What if things are on the upswing in five months? What if the move is moderately successful and Iraq is on the slow but very steady and obvious track up? We need tough decision, not nice-sounding platitudes

Bush 43 gambled his entire Presidency, his standing in history, and his reputation on the Iraq War. So far, it was a bet that he has lost. Assuming that tonight President Bush does what is expected of him, it will be the equivalent of pushing in all his chips. It is a move that cannot be repeated and one that will either save Iraq or send the U.S. down a road to a Vietnamesque pull-out.

Is this a good move? I don't know. But I do know that whatever the President does, and whatever the Congress does in response, must be based on sound reasoning, not emotion-driven, Freakshow politics.

We need statesmen, not politicians.