The front-page, above-the-fold headline on the Los Angeles Times this morning read, “Pentagon’s plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq.”

That was quick. Yesterday, we suggested the ISG report and Bush’s s “way forward” strategy sessions were all for show — that in fact Bush had decided earlier this year to send a “surge” of personnel into Iraq in 2007.

This prediction was based on looking at the options as the president saw them and choosing the one that would most benefit him personally and politically. Bush’s motives are focused entirely on salvaging his legacy. His short-term objective is to tamp down the violence in Iraq sufficiently to create a false perception of success. With a semblance of order in Iraq, he can declare victory before he leaves office. Whether the victory is real is irrelevant. If Iraq collapses under the next president’s watch, it will be his or her responsibility, not Dubya’s.

According to the Times article:

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to “double down” in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive…

The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required, but other officials said such a number was unrealistic. There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

The flaw in this strategy, as we pointed out yesterday, is that it has been tried before — by Pres. Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam in 1965. After Johnson sent in an additional 50,000 troops, the United States remained in Vietnam for another decade, during which tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel and innocent civilians were killed and untold millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted.