So the Bush administration appears to be doing some things right, like talking to Iran & Syria, as suggested by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Is this an actual change in strategy (pushed by Condi?) or is there something else happening here?
I thought Bush would go with the commission's report as a CYA approach to dealing with inevitable failure. However, Bush instead chose his "stay the course" troop buildup, providing what is perhaps too few troops to accomplish "victory" (whatever that is defined as, now), though apparently with the intention of producing a positive outcome.
Those who think he irrevocably screwed up the Iraq war 3 or 4 years ago would argue that victory is no longer possible. Bush appears to think otherwise, as I don't see much advantage for him in simply drawing things out prior to accepting ultimate failure.
So, is this a strategic shift? Is Condi behind it? Is there an ulterior motive in either talking to Iran/Syria or the troop buildup? Is Bush pursuing something other than ill-defined victory in Iraq? Comments?