See Yglesias for more of what I'm about to say: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c..._long_haul.php
This is what the surge all boils down to. Do you want to commit to a minimum 5 year (probably 10-20) commitment of 120,000 troops, another 2-4 trillion dollars, and a few more thousand dead soldiers in order to see "success" in Iraq? The surge has accomplished nothing sustainable and those who argue such are engaging in the wishful thinking that has defined conservative support of this war from the beginning. So you need to make such a commitment if you want to actually accomplish a watered down version of the original goals of this war.
And even if you want to make such a commitment for our armed forces and our taxpayers, do you really think the public will support such an entanglement for another 5, 7, 10 or 20 years? I hope Pi and GarbageCowboy answer this question. And I wish Republicans had to answer it. What is your end game here? What are you selling to the American public? I really want to know what you think is going to happen if we just stay there. And at what point do you go, okay, enough is enough, let's get out. Please answer these questions, I really want to know.