"Non-decisional" Bush & the continuing disaster

Today's magic word from Crawford is "non-decisional."

That's the term the White House invented to characterize today's meeting between President Bush and his top national security advisers. It means, apparently, that The Decider can't quite make up his mind about how to stop the sectarian violence his policies have unleashed in Iraq.

The most popular proposal, according to press reports, is a surge of new U.S. troops in Baghdad, a move designed to quell the bloodshed.

But at least some U.S. soldiers in Iraq are skeptical that the plan can work. The AP reports today that members of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, now on patrol in Baghdad, believe no number of American troops can stop the killing.

The AP report continues:

Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.

But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.

Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.

"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colo. "What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."

This is more than a little distressing. Remember when we were bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East? Meanwhile Bush, Cheney and Rice scratch their heads in Crawford.

Our soldiers on the ground have little faith in The Decider's plans. We don't blame them. After all, today's meeting is "non-decisional."