The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.
Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.
But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.
The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.
Are the Joint Chiefs finally coming to their senses that the Bush administration doesn't have a clue as to what to do regarding the escalating violence and civil war raging in Iraq. The administration has shoved the Iraq Study Group's report in trash bin. Both the regular Army and the National Guard are starting to break down due to the broken equipment and continuous tours in Iraq. And now the Bush administration is considering this surge of troops to Iraq to do--what?
Continuing with the WaPost story:
At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.
The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.
The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.
In other words, it is a losing strategy. The Shiite militias would love a surge in U.S. troops to move into the Sunni territory to battle the Sunni insurgents. When the surge of U.S. troops pulls out, the Shiite militias move back in to continue killing the Sunnis. We would be doing the dirty work of killing Sunnis, while our own young American soldiers would be killed and wounded--all to the benefit of the Shiite militias, who would sit back and watch the carnage.
And what is the Bush administration saying about all this?
A senior administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option. "Of course, military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -- what you're trying to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of manpower and strength and all that," the official said.
You've got to love Tony Snow's double-speak here. It is "too simplistic" to say that the surge questions has broken down into a fight between the White House and Pentagon--I guess that means we do have a big fight between the White House and Pentagon here. Since the Bush administration doesn't have a mission for the troops in Iraq, the Pentagon brass are asking the White House questions as to why we are to support another impulsive move of increasing U.S. troops in Iraq for no reason at all, no goals, and even no metrics to determine if this increase of troops can accomplish these non-goals. And do you really expect the Bush administration to consider the ramifications that such an increase would have on the already broken-down Army and National Guard?
At least we are starting to see some dissent coming out against this irresponsible Bush White House. I seriously doubt that this fight between the Pentagon and the Bush administration is going to change the U.S. policy in Iraq. Like it or not, the Bush administration will order an increase of U.S. troops into Iraq. But if this fight between the Pentagon and the Bush administration continues, then it may cause some Democratic congressmen to rethink their own impulsive views regarding such a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq--I'm talking about you Harry Reid!
More to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment