I think this goes here. As Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker,
are going to sell congress and American the truth about Iraq this week. Several think tank types (you know the 4th element in the direction policy is shaped and made) have their own thoughts.

Plenty of links in the story at the site: Why Iraq troop drawdown is likely to stop in July - Yahoo! News

"We're definitely going to hear a lot from [Petraeus and Mr. Crocker] about what our military strategy has accomplished and how there still needs to be more political progress," says Judith Yaphe, an Iraq specialist at "The National Defense University" here. "But there's a lot of risk and uncertainty – for the Iraqis, for our role in Iraq, for our elections, so I don't see it as a period when we're going to see much change in the way of strategy."

And from Ken Pollack, a former National Security Council Persian Gulf expert who's now at the Brookings Institution, says the US, having stabilized the Sunni Anbar Province and the north, should turn its attention to the south where Iraq's dominant Shiite communities are in great flux.

"The surge has actually encouraged a fair percentage of the Shia population," he says. "Quietly, the Shia communities have begun to come over and are saying, 'We don't really like' " the various political-party-affiliated militias that have divided them. If the US doesn't seize this moment with the Shiite population, he adds, it risks being associated with the very same powerful militias it is trying to weaken.

But this from one of Ken Pollack, comrades gets me to set up the most:
But others say the fine points of political reconciliation, whether it's happening and how fast, are increasingly beside the point in the US political context.

"The realistic timetable for [stabilizing Iraq] may be 10 years, but the political timetable is 10 months," says Ivo Daalder, a US foreign-policy specialist at the Brookings Institution. He doesn't expect to see a determined congressional effort this year to alter Iraq policy.

"The political debate will no longer be on the Hill," says Mr. Daalder, "but what you do in '09." (( Mr. Daalder just doesn't get it! 2 of the three will try in some way to reduce the numbers as soon as possible. Or has he let the cat out of the bag?))

I would ONLY listen to the generals on the ground and not turn this into a political fight...The last time that was tried was an insult to Petraeus...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I agree but was pointing out some of the other points in the story. The story
has a lot more that the quotes I posted.
My point was and is there are now 4 elements in the policy making, where before Regan it was three. President, both houses of govt. and the Justice if I have it correct.

Nope...

Congress decides the wallet...It does NOT (and has never had) the authority to conduct HOW military operations proceed...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

We are talking 2 different points I think. I agree with your point as I have both the Bill of Rights and the Consitution here at home and online.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Bill of Rights - Text Version | Freedom Documents

My point is on policy making. That movie, "Why We Fight" made it plain there is a new element in the decision process which I already knew of, these think tanks are where selections for political appointees (not all but many) are decided. Plus they are a new valued tool in many sessions and behind the doors meetings. Their expert imput is needed, or asked for. Now whom directs the people to ask for the help? The very same ones who benefit from the decisions made! Our govt. has a loop where power is a factor.
So a lot is slanted to cause reforms the elite who pay for the think tanks (in a way not noticed)want made by policy changes.
Just how do you think Charlie Wilson or even Bush got so much done alone...?
Without the knowledge of others till after the facts.