Five to ten years in Iraq

Michael Hirsh in Newsweek tells us the "surge" strategy will take us five to ten years to pull off:

Feb. 22, 2007 - The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five.

The idea, apparently, is that we've concluded the Iraqis can't do this, so the U.S. will have to. That means becoming deeply entrenched in Iraq for the long-term.

Yes, with enough people (more than we've got), enough time, and enough brutality we could suppress the population. After all, the Romans did it regularly.

I don't see it happening. No one (except maybe Cheney and Bush) has the stomach for a commitment of that nature. Look how it's sapping our strength even now.