Lieberman demands an escalation, beeeyitch.

It's hard to begin to deconstruct the logic of his editorial in today's Post, or separate the downright lies from the wishful thinking.

The most pressing problem we face in Iraq is not an absence of Iraqi political will or American diplomatic initiative, both of which are increasing and improving; it is a lack of basic security. As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation.

This bloodshed, moreover, is not the inevitable product of ancient hatreds. It is the predictable consequence of a failure to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed to undermine Iraq's fragile political center. By ruthlessly attacking the Shiites in particular over the past three years, al-Qaeda has sought to provoke precisely the dynamic of reciprocal violence that threatens to consume the country.

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.

And a pony.

Nevermind that Lieberman's call for "action -- and soon" sounds strange given his promises to me and my fellow CT voters that the troops would begin coming home this holiday season.

Lieberman speaks of these "thugs and extremists" as though they're extras from The Road Warrior rather than integral players in the political situation that's gripping the "nation." It appears to even the most casual observer that these aren't simply some kind of criminal gangs, but rather agents of political actors in the "unity" government or the armed forces of ethnic groups, tribal leaders, and war lords.

Furthermore, the conflation of al Qaeda and Iran illustrates either Lieberman's complete ignorance of the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite or a deliberate misrepresentation intended to relate Iraq to 9-11, something even preznit doesn't stoop to (much) anymore.

Lieberman, who has never seen a war he wouldn't vote for, is so eager to distill more sanctimonious blather about the heroic Iraqis and sacrifice and decisive action, that he never quite gets around to indicating what exactly more troops are going to come from or what they're going to do once they get there. He doesn't suggest that a call for more troops should be tied to a change in strategy. Quite the opposite, he wants to square the current strategy. Not just "stay the course," Lieberman wants to turbocharge it. He is laboring under the illusion that simply "flooding the zone" in Baghdad will put down the insurgency...and make him look good and wise. It won't and he won't. The insurgents may disappear for a while, but the various factions are determined to solidify territory and ethnically cleanse. I don't know the answer for Iraq, but I do know that escalating a failed strategy won't fix a disaster.

Lieberman is arrogant, sanctimonious, pompous, and insulting. But he's the last honest man. Deeply serious, he's so obviously disappointed in our collective failure to support the Bush/McCain/Lieberman war.