IRAQ and Risk Theory

I just don't get the Dems. Aside from the fact that many of them were calling for an increase in troops until George W decided to actually increase troops, their analysis of the current situation and possible solutions seems beyond lame to me.

There seems to be two choices on the table. Increase troops for a while, finish the training and outfitting of Iraqi troops and political types, then leave when things are more stable.

Choice two - start pulling out now, or pull out now.

After the huge investment we have made, it would seem like the first line of action has a very small cost and/or risk. Yes, people will continue to die, and more mistakes will be made. There will continue to be actual $$ spent in large quantities. However, the reward for this choice is monumental. Stable Iraq, more stable Middle East, model state, better stability in oil business, win for the good guys, loss for the bad guys.

It might not work, and we might still have to leave with a loss. However, it seems worth the risk.

On the other hand, the move out approach seems to have great risks in terms of potential human suffering now and later. Yes, the financial risks are less, and the risks to American soldiers MIGHT be less, and there is certainly some chance that less presence by US troops might make it easier to broker a peace.

But it seems to me that the risk/reward analysis strongly favors this last effort at trying to get the job done.