Bush is gambling with our troops like a guy who can't leave a Vegas craps table, so giving him 50-50 odds just supports his habit.

Jim. I'd say the 50-50 chance is optimistic. Like Custer calling the Little Bighorn, a 'Target Rich Environment'. The Generals have been shown to be poor gamblers, so call up Vegas and find out their odds on this affair. I'm betting its more like 74-26 against success. People, place your bets.

jim, you dreamer,not even vegas would give bush 50-50 without spotting points. in this case covering the spread will be the number of troops we'll lose covering his vanity. i again emphasis "exchange and extract" policy for troop withdrawal. the caps proposed by dodd and clinton only support continued presence without and extraction plan much less date.

Heads or tails?

i give it about 10% chance of success.

50/50?! Drugs, anyone?

"Suicide Mission" or "Mission Accomplished"?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on George Bush. Of course, I also took Oregon over BYU.

Its always amazing how the general's assesments change once they are retired, as if all of a sudden they develop a backbone, a conscience and the ability to speak the truth....

If I thought there was a 50/50 chance of "success" (whatever we've decided that is) I'd cheer George Bush as a great leader. You know what? I'm not going to have to do that.

President Bush is going to send 21,500 more American men and women into a 1000 year old tribal civil war..with military experts giving the adventure a 50/50 chance? The utter disregard for our Troops by an American President is beyond appalling. Toothless "resolutions" passed by Congress are meaningless. The President of the United States apparently is either 1) exceedingly immoral or 2) no longer has both oars in the water. In any event, the Congress of the United States, had best take control of the situation and not allow this military blunder to exacerbate.

I believe sending more troops will make some difference, how much remains to be seen. It has been called a "surge" but I see it as sending reenforcements. As late as December Sens. Joseph Biden and John Kerry among others were calling for more troops. Almost no member of Congress, except for a few of the most liberal, is calling for an immediate withdrawal, and a majoity of the American public believe that no firm deadline for withdrawing troops. What would the consequences of such a move be?

Amazing what happens in a closed door session. Closed indeed, to encourage candor. Leaked as usual. The result? No more candor, just the company line. Way to go, zealots...

saying the chances are 50/50 is hardly candor, sounds more like fence-sitting. General Schoomaker is the driving force behind the structural military changes of the last half-dozen years. Rumsfeld is usually given credit, or blame depending on you political view, but transitioning to SF-style light infantry as opposed to armor has been Schoomaker's brain-child since his days running SOCOM. As for JWilson's comments, General Schoomaker is most definitely honest and has a fine conscience and the reason retired military leaders may more openly express their personal opinions publicly after they retire is because of a little thing know as the chain of command. Until the day they retire, they are required to give the company line. If the General says it has a 50/50 chance, then it's the military line to say so. Of course this discussion is moot in the sense that any event with only two outcomes has a 50/50 chance; that's just freshman year statistics.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):