It's ironic that people like Mr. Ghahramani continue to bring up the Iraq Study Group report and "recommendations of... bipartisan panel[s]" ("Protests, demonstrations could have positive impacts," Feb. 6), when voicing criticism of the troop surge in Iraq, as both the ISG report and Democrat leaders have advised exactly that. If he had taken the time to actually read the report instead of repeating what he's heard on the news, perhaps he would choose not to cite it in his main argument.

In the report, under the Security and Military Forces section, part four addresses the continued training of Iraqi forces and reads: "While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units." Part 11 rejects permanently adding 200,000 troops while concluding: "We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad."

The ISG report isn't the only major recommendation of increasing troop levels. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Reyes, D-TX, along with Senator Joe Biden, D-DE, have both recommended publicly sending additional forces to Iraq. President Bush is doing what the ISG report and senior congressional Democrats have insisted he do.

I'm not sure what point Mr. Ghahramani is trying to make by including the 'Brownie' quote in his article. That's like me arguing against military action in Bosnia by reminding everyone that Clinton is the man who said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." One has nothing to do with the other.

If you're against the surge simply because President Bush is for it, perhaps you should re-evaluate your stance.