And from the Economist

From “The President’s last throw”:

More American troops may or may not bring greater security. But they will offer more targets for insurgents to shoot at, and reinforce many Iraqis’ resentment of the occupation. More civilians could get killed, whether by error, carelessness or worse.

The surge, then, may be too small to make a decisive impact and yet too large for the American armed forces to bear. The tempo of troop rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan is already in breach of the Pentagon’s guidelines. Equipment is being lost in battle or worn out much faster than anticipated. A bigger army would help, but it will take years to recruit and train new combat units.

Mr Bush’s plan is to create some “breathing space”, bring down the violence to a level that the Iraqi security forces can manage and give them time to become more proficient. But to work, the military campaign has to be intimately bound up with economic and political progress.

The president’s “benchmarks” for the Iraqi government—sharing oil revenues fairly, spending $10 billion on reconstruction, holding provincial elections, revising the federal constitution and the “de-Baathification” process—are desirable. But they have mostly been heard before, and Mr Maliki’s government has failed to achieve them. In any case, big political issues may matter little to gunmen who are often fighting to control the local market, petrol station or street.

Indeed.