Stumbling into total incoherence.

Putz is now saying he agrees with Nancy Pelosi on Iraq.

Related thoughts from Jon Henke, who thinks that Nancy Pelosi might be onto something by saying Iraq isn't a war: "If it were a war, we could win it by killing people and blowing stuff up. While security problems necessarily involve the occasional application of force, the dominant difficulties in Iraq simply aren't force-on-force problems. The remaining problems are sociopolitical. No amount of firepower is going to resolve the intractable conflicts of interest between the Shiites and the Sunnis, or between various subgroups. No US troop level will convince the rival Iraqi factions that pluralism is better than asserting their own interests. They'll either find it in their interest to moderate. . .or they won't."

I think that's right -- as I've said before, it's a political rather than a military issue, which is why I've been unpersuaded by the more-troops argument.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that adding more troops isn't mutually exclusive with supporting a political mission, since more troops would theoretically provide more security, what happened to sitting on our bayonets and the loss of momentum? What happened to all of the confident announcements that "we're winning" supported by historical kill ratios? What happened to the Democrats not understanding the true nature of the war and being unserious disgraces?

I'm looking forward to more flip-flops, errr, clarifications from Putz and the likes of Bay, after the Iraq Study Group makes their recommendations.

"As I've said all along, we need to start withdrawing troops..."