Proving that the Democrats are the party of obstruction and have no interest in bipartisan cooperation to solve the world’s problems, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would support an increase in US troops as long as it were part of a larger plan to decrease troop levels.

“If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that,” said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

“The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically,” Reid said. “We have to change course in Iraq.”

And you know what? I agree. See, my view on Iraq has been fairly unchanging for the past two years or so: do what needs to get done to finish. If that means a burst of troops for a little while, then go for it. Bush has tried to play this as a purely political issue instead of an actual war. While he talks of the struggle for civilization itself, he won’t buckle down the economy and send as many troops as necessary. Rather, he’s used it as a trump card to keep support around him and his party.

Enough of my generic ranting about Bush and the war, my point was that we shouldn’t reject any plans so long as the end goal is the swiftest possible end. A brief increase of troops may accomplish just that, and if that’s the conclusion that is drawn, rather than “let’s send in a buttload of troops and cross our fingers”, then I’ll support it fully.