Sigh. Here we go again. William Kristol and Rich Lowry:

We are at a crucial moment in Iraq. Supporters of the war, like us, have in the past differed over tactics. But at this urgent pass, there can be no doubt that we need to stop the downward slide in Iraq by securing Baghdad.

Great. Now we've got the neo-cons handling tactics for the Army from the editorial pages of the Washington Post. Since the strategery part worked out so well for everyone.

But at this urgent pass, there can be no doubt that we need to stop the downward slide in Iraq by securing Baghdad.

There is no mystery as to what can make the crucial difference in the battle of Baghdad: American troops. A few thousand U.S. troops have already been transferred to Baghdad from elsewhere in Iraq. Where more U.S. troops have been deployed, the situation has gotten better.

[Not so.

In truth, the situation appears to be "better" only because the Republicans cooked the books (as usual):

The American military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks - including suicide bombings - when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of murders in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. command said Monday.

The decision to include only victims of drive-by shootings and those killed by torture and execution, usually at the hands of death squads, allowed U.S. officials to argue that a security crackdown that began in the capital Aug. 7 had more than halved the city’s murder rate.

But who's counting? Because when you've got the right ideology, the facts just don't matter. Of course, if I were really paranoid, I'd imagine that the books were cooked up for the very purpose of conducting this PR campaign. But--Naah.]

But back to the guys who put the "con" in neo-con (Hi, Ahmed!):

The bottom line is this: More U.S. troops in Iraq would improve our chances of winning a decisive battle at a decisive moment.

Henri Cartier-Bresson, where are you when we need you?

This means the ability to succeed in Iraq is, to some significant degree, within our control. ...

There is now no good argument for not sending more troops.

Translation: "If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs. If we had some eggs."

Bush should therefore order a substantial surge in overall troop levels in Iraq, with the additional forces focused on securing Baghdad.

Right, then. A "substantial surge." Great stuff for a PowerPoint slide but where are the troops to come from? Wait! I know! Bush losing Anbar province has a silver lining after all--we can take the troops from there!

Well, look. I just brought my galoshes this morning, instead of my hip boots, so wading through the next paragraphs of devo-con bloviation just isn't an option for me. Let's gratefully skip to the end:

Administration spokesmen have jettisoned talk of "staying the course" in Iraq in favor of "adapting to win." If those words are to have meaning, the administration can't simply stay the course on current troop levels. We need to adapt to win the battle of Baghdad. We need substantially more troops in Iraq. Sending them would be a courageous act of presidential leadership appropriate to the crisis we face.

Translation: As I said, "Double or nothing, or you're a pussy!"

Of course, if the neo-cons weren't fundamentally unserious pussies themselves, they'd be calling for a draft. After all, civilization is at stake, and surely Americans should be willing to sacrifice for that? Oh, they're not?

Kristol and Lowry are as serious as one of Dear Leader's wet farts. This editorial isn't about Iraqi strategy or tactics; Kristol and Lowry aren't equipped, professionally, for that kind of work, and their ideological rigidity should disqualify them for real-world activities like war in any case; they are simply incapable of displaying adaptability.

This editorial is about pre-positioning blame to protect the neo-con enterprise (a.k.a. funding). Remember: Conservatism can never fail; it can only be failed. When Iraq tanks, the neo-cons will be able to say that nobody took their advice.

NOTE Glenn leavesRich Lowry whimpering (and high time, too).