NP: John Cage, 4'33"

The latest idea running up the Iraqi flagpole has been largely derided as tone deaf to the reality of the situation and/or the will of the American people.

Putting aside the practical concern of finding 40,000 additional troops, though, I've got two comments actually in favor of the idea. First, there's the pesky bit about "an increase in industrial aid." I've always felt that things like keeping the electricity on were huge priorities that haven't gotten enough attention -- although I'm basing that on just what I read in the papers and in the blogs, so I don't know if it's accurate -- and I can't recall ever seeing it stated explicitly in a plan before. I'm probably wrong about this, but it's the reaction I had to it.

As for the other parts of the equation, this is, after all, a Pentagon report, so I don't think it's a surprise that they defined their ideal scenario in classic military terms. Clearly identify the enemy (al-Sadr) and hit him hard (additional troops). Which isn't to say it's a good idea, necessarily, just the idea you should expect from the military.