If this were poker, this would be the interesting part: You've got your cards, the bets are climbing, and you've got to decide whether to raise or fold.
That is essentially where the United States stands now in regard to increasing the number of troops in Iraq.
On one side are proponents, like Senator John McCain, who have said doggedly for several years that the force of 140,000 or so troops in Iraq is simply not enough to stabilize the country and ensure lasting victory. History is on their side. According to the Brookings Institution, if we look at the kind of force it has taken to stabilize other countries after war, Iraq probably requires a minimum of 400,000 American troops.
The problem is, we just don't have that many extra troops sitting around.
Some critics say at best America could put 20,000 or 30,000 more pairs of boots on the ground in Iraq, and that, they say, might ... might ... be enough to stabilize Baghdad.
Still, some close observers of the war say it is worth trying. Get Baghdad to settle down, and expand outward, they say. Use the extra American soldiers and Marines to establish a bulkhead of security and build on it.
Like I said, if we were talking about poker, this is would be the interesting part. But this is not poker. We are talking about American lives; the commitment of some of our best and bravest young people. We are talking about a country's future.
So what would you do? Would sending more troops to Iraq make a positive difference or just raise the stakes?