For specific ideas on how to win, Ralph Peters is always a good source of information. Via Lucianne, here's Peters' column: "Fighting to Win" from the New York Post.
An excerpt: "Army generals worry that frantic politicos want to send more troops to Iraq as a p.r. stunt, to appear to be taking decisive action. Our uniformed leadership is rightly loath to have our troops used to give anyone's approval ratings a temporary boost. They'll do what they're ordered to do and do it well. They just want the mission to have a chance of success that justifies the human and strategic cost.
Could an increase of 20,000 to 40,000 troops make a difference?
Yes - but only if they're assigned a clear, achievable mission and our government stands behind them solidly as they carry it out. Sending more troops in the vague hope that it will magically improve the situation would be a travesty."
It is quite easy to call for more troops without understanding what those troops are going to do and where they are going to come from. It has been the problem all along. Furthermore, I recall not very long ago, our forces were stepped up in Baghdad with no positive result. Peters' lays out some very clear suggestions for using increased troops. If we go that way...increasing 20,000 to 40,000 men and women being put in harm's way...I sure hope those that call for sending them have a plan.