WP,pg1: White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops: "unanimous disagreement of Joint Chiefs"

[DeepModem Mom]

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; Page A01

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.

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....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html

[Botany]

1. Tides surge .... football teams on offense surge ... an actor befor he/she ..

.... hits the stage might get a "surge" of confidence but this is a surge of madness.

The I.S.G., the pentagon, and the voters have all said no but * pushes on.

[goforit]

45. Yes....The madness of Team 'B' is wearing on the masses.

[maddezmom]

2. did anyone watch the presser after the meeting? not a lot of happy faces

President Bush, center, concludes his comments with reporters at the Pentagon, Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2006, following meeting with military leaders to discuss Iraq. From left are, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, the president, Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. and outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

[barb162]

3. How do you add troops whern there are no troops to add

Bush needs a reality check bigtime

[saigon68]

7. They just EXTEND the ones who are now there

And make the tours longer

They need to recruit more rustics for the slaughter too.

[barb162]

8. When all these guys get shellshock or injured otherwise

there will be no one to send

[Kikosexy2]

30. The Save My...

Lame Ass Legacy campaign continues...need more troops? Why not recruit our prison populations...prisons are overcrowded anyways...would anyone miss criminals locked in prison? Maybe start a new campaign--Commit a heinous crime...go to Iraq, not prison... do I sound harsh?

[MGD]

53. Criminals could frequently choose between prison or Vietnam a few decades ago.

It's already been done. I think he should hire illegal aliens to do the job personally.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. Maybe they could do what the Brits did in 1776, i.e., buy some

"Hessians" to do the dirty work. Oh, wait, they are already doing that, with their 50,000+ mercenaries who operate outside any law whatsoever.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. A grim group, indeed. Thanks for the pics. nt

[maddezmom]

5. cheney, bush etc before the meeting started....interesting the smirks

Looks like they all changed their demeanor after the meeting.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

13. Easy to smirk when no one is shooting at them or anyone in their family, Arrogant bastards.

[goforit]

46. Cheney is such a slouch in this pic and a slouch toward life.

[leftchick]

14. how does Pace sleep at night?

or look at himself in the mirror? He is such a tool for the MIC it is beyond sickening.

:puke:

[blitzen]

6. The WH is "latching on to the surge idea" because AEI (the Kagans)

told them to.

The evil sire of that brood, Donald Kagan, is a self-proclaimed great intellectual whose genius insight is that "war is the default mode of the human species." When he's not warmongering, he collects baseball cards and warps minds at Yale.

[rcdean]

10. The Kagans: Machismo thinking dressed up as intellectual realism

(I started to write a concurring response, but it wound up becoming an essay that I just posted on Amazon.)

The Kagans--like many of today's conservative intellectuals who have never served in the military--are conceptually stuck in a century old mold of military power. Their sense of what a standing army can accomplish in defiance of an indigenous population, in the modern world of cheap weapons and undetectable explosives, is misguided. They appear to have no sense of the realistic limitations of modern conventional forces facing well-supplied guerrilla counter-forces.

As the US experience in both Vietnam and Iraq demonstrate clearly, standing armies can not defeat a determined, indigenous, well supplied insurgency. In fact, such an insurgency will almost certainly prevail where the will of the ostensibly more powerful standing army is contingent upon its own domestic, democratic support of the venture.

Unless a standing army can occupy the whole of its territory and bring it to submission 24/7, it can never succeed. The indigenous "enemy" will always flee by day and fight by night and by subterfuge.

Frustrated by the world's present conflicts and threats--which, they fail to acknowledge, pale in comparison to the slaughter, destruction and chaos of WWI and WWII, the Kagans and Neocons seem utterly bent upon forcing the abandonment of post-war enlightened thought and conduct in favor of a return to a state of universal barbarism, the very thing that the ascent of man has sought to overcome.

I have no idea why they would seek to "wake us" from our "sleep" only to confront us with the nightmarish notion that it is somehow America's duty to subdue and conquer wherever in the world we are able to construe that our "interests" are at stake.

Indeed, their philosophy is so antediluvian that one struggles to understand why they seek to take us back to the law of the jungle at the very time the world has reached a state of relative stability. Surely the 9/11 attacks weren't the end of the world, and surely "terrorism" will never defeat our nation or any other nation in the free world, unless it is by internal repression as a result of succumbing to the kind of universal fear preached by the Kagans.

The only conclusion I can reach is that their true motive is to build support for Israeli conduct in the Middle East. They seek to cause America to revert to a mindset of "might makes right," and thus be willing to support even the most extreme measures by Israel to defeat its enemies and to further extinguish Palestinian interests. In short, the Kaganites and the Neocon Straussians all appear to be seeking the perpetual subordination of American interests to those perceived to be Israel's by its ruling right wing. And they are willing to--indeed obliged to--destroy traditional American values in order to achieve this goal.

Sadly and ironically, they fail to grasp the fact that America is and always will be an ardent defender of Israel, provided Israel honors and respects not just the power of hostile surrounding nations, but also the humanity of its repressed Palestinian masses.

In an effort to justify the rampant, "preemptive" injection of US military power into problematic situations, the Kagans would have us believe that modern invading forces can actually accomplish something other than to ignite perpetual hatred of the invader by the invaded.

Eventually such hatreds coalesce to the disadvantage of the invader. And eventually, the invasion fails and an embarrassing withdrawal is inevitable.

That is the true lesson of modern warfare. We have seen it happen time and time again: Japan in Asia, Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa, the US in Vietnam and Iraq, the USSR in Afghanistan, Britain in India, France in Algeria, and so forth.

The Kagans are living in the distant past.

[xchrom]

11. a wikipedia bio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan

donald kagan s absolutely influential is designing the idea of an aggressive america.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Kagan

and here's his charming son -- a fellow at the american enterprize institute.

[zippy890]

12. good post

and welcome to DU

[many a good man]

15. Excellent post!

You cut to the meat. How many times must we re-learn obvious lessons?

Welcome.

[Felinity]

17. 'scuse me for asking

And welcome to DU by the way-nice post!

Quoting your essay:

"They seek to cause America to revert to a mindset of "might makes right," and thus be willing to support even the most extreme measures by Israel to defeat its enemies and to further extinguish Palestinian interests. In short, the Kaganites and the Neocon Straussians all appear to be seeking the perpetual subordination of American interests to those perceived to be Israel's by its ruling right wing. And they are willing to--indeed obliged to--destroy traditional American values in order to achieve this goal."

Why? Religious fanaticism? Or something else? Why do we support Israel when they act badly while, by comparison, undermining the viability of Taiwan--an obvious victim state--by empowering China (ignoring all their misdeeds in establishing trade policy) to the point of our own peril, economic and sovereign.

"Sadly and ironically, they fail to grasp the fact that America is and always will be an ardent defender of Israel, provided Israel honors and respects not just the power of hostile surrounding nations, but also the humanity of its repressed Palestinian masses."

Again, why? Israel has been taking a hard line for a while now (10-20 years? sorry, I'm no historian). Still the US govt. and population takes their side. I don't see any qualifications for respecting the Palestinians in our policy; and I'm not sure the public can differentiate between the ill-treated Palestinians and the 911 Hijackers, unfortunately.

I'm interested in your thoughts-mine are quickly tossed out here, pretty rough. But here is my take, in general:

Our foreign policy really sucks. It has sucked for a long while. Our motives are somewhere between self-serving; and outrageously and stupidly INSANE, indefensible and oftentimes evil.

[Jim__]

24. "Our motives are ... stupidly INSANE"

I don't believe our foreign policy is stupidly insane. It's actually quite rational. If you want to be a successful American politician, you have to raise lots of money. That comes from lobbyists. One of the most powerful political lobbies in the US is AIPAC - the linked article is a summary; but it contains links to the full article. That is the main reason we support Israel when it acts badly. The politicians who control our foreign policy are for sale.

[Felinity]

42. Wowie!

First, our motives are stupidly insane if our objective is peace, or truth and justice. But you're right, those are not our motives. So big surprise that we have so many problems it's like whack-a-mole around the globe.

Second, our foreign policy should not be subject to lobbying efforts, except through Diplomatic channels. But again, the real world has devolved into pay-to-play, no matter what the issue. If I made the rules, I'd throw a congressman in jail for taking a stick of chewing gum from a lobbyist. I guess that makes me irrational.

[rcdean]

36. Good questions.

We support Israel's right to exist largely as a result of the western world's post-WWII sense that as a consequence of the horrors of the holocaust, Jews deserved a homeland.

The western world believed such compensatory justice was so necessary that it didn't mind acquiescing in the theft of somebody else's land to achieve it. Nor did the west object as the Palestinians were subsequent herded into quarantined refugee camps in cordoned off cells of land called the Occupied Territories.

But, hey, who are we to bitch about that? We did the same exact thing to Native Americans. The only difference is we had a lot more land to work with, so we could afford to give them whole parcels of virtually useless terra firma to call their own without the need to insert in their midst enclaves of white fanatics to keep them under control.

But no matter what the past may have been, we live in the world of the here and now. And the status quo is such that Israel--on humanitarian grounds alone--deserves our protection from external invaders.

Of course, on those same grounds, the Palestinians deserve their own homeland, free from multiple pockets of militarily reinforced settlements of Jewish religious fanatics.

We must of course keep in mind that a large number of Israelis oppose the occupation and want a Palestinian homeland as well. But they are as helpless as we liberals were in the face of the recent near total dominance of the right until just this past year.

And we must also keep in mind that, just as the Settlements are manned by fanatics who actually believe the God of the universe GAVE THEM and their heirs the "Holy Land," so do do many Palestinian fanatics believe that the same God gave the land to them.

Both groups of fanatics are nut cases. But both have the absolute power at any moment to defeat any move toward peace by launching some cruel, horrific assault upon the other.

So all the right and all the angels are not on any single side.

If America were less a product of religious fanaticism itself, perhaps we could be the guiding force in debunking fanaticism elsewhere. Sadly that is not the case. Any US politician who dared to say that it is absurd to believe that the bible is a mere collection of folk tales and not the "Revealed Word of God" would be driven from office overnight.

Reality is a bitch. But it's where we live.

[Felinity]

43. That's pretty much what I thought.

My point is that Israel has been behaving badly for a while now and we still take up for them; while our relationship with Japan and Germany has changed completely in the same period of time. And still we hang on the emotional reaction to what the Jewish people endured over 50 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to undue that deal, I just want Israel to start respecting the position of the Palestinians; and what with that little escapade in Lebanon this year, I have lost respect for their government.

[independentpiney]

18. Excellent essay. That deserves it's own post.

[DeepModem Mom]

28. Excellent, rcdean. Thank you, and welcome to DU!

[KoKo]

29. Nice Essay.....amazing that these Think Tankers have so much influence

"intellectually" in the government and they ignore exactly what you say. An oppressed and occupied people will always use whatever means they have to overthrow the conquerer. Even if only stones are available for weapons there is always "strategy" which can outwit the greatist foe, given time. It's the history not only of post modern warfare but from the dawn of time. The story of little David and Goliath comes to mind, also.

What kind of mindset always conveniently ignores history yet manages to intellectually worm it's way into the halls of power by touting that only "THEY" are the "Realists?"

Perhaps it only takes a weak and foolish king or a weak and foolish P-Resident "wanna be dictator" to allow this to happen over and over. The "wise men and women" (with degrees from prestigious universities and powerful family and business connections) are fools.

[Peace Patriot]

32. Fascinating, informative analysis! But you leave out war profiteering and oil.

I've been considering the notion lately that Israel really has very little to do with it. Yeah, Israel's rightwing joined with others (for instance, the Christian nutballs) to draw the U.S. military into their little hell (small medieval fortress, bristling with armaments, surrounded by hostile neighbors, in which the Israeli militarists keep their population in a state of fear and extract big bucks from them, from Israel's supporters around the world, and from the U.S., by never making peace). I think I understand what's going on, there and here. It's just that: a) Israel has never been in more peril than it is now--with the hated Bush regime as it only ally in the world, and b) the U.S. is drained nearly dry--of money, of troops--and surely somebody in Israel's mad rightwing government knew this would happen--and that it would, in addition, call U.S. support for Israel into question, by the American people.

So ask yourself this: Say, there were no Israel. Say it never happened. Say the WW II Allies had given Jews Alaska instead, or part of Texas. Would Bush and his handlers still be mired in blood and oil in Iraq? I say yes.

And the main reason is not Israel. The main reason is two forms of WAR PROFITEERING--1) the direct kind, both fists in the barrel grabbing billions and billions of unaccountable dollars right out of our treasury and out of future U.S. treasuries--god knows where it has all gone (the Cayman Islands?), in the most amazing robbery of any people that has ever occurred, conducted by our own global corporate predators--Halliburton & brethren--with the tagalong super-rich getting their pigsty rewards as well. And 2) use of the U.S. military and its taxpayer-supported personnel and equipment for corporate resource wars, Iraq being the most obvious, but also Afghanistan*, with additional HUMONGOUS use of oil by the U.S. military for all these operations, AND merciless gasoline PRICE GOUGING at home.

I think Israel is just one little puddle in this great toxic pond. It was the motivation of some of the NeoCons, yes. And its rightwing had its own motivations. And its lobbyists do run rampant in Washington DC--but so do a lot of other lobbyists. DC is a hogpen of lobbyists, most of them of the global corporate predator kind. Israel is just a little country. Its current inhabitants--even its wingers and militarists and war profiteers--are NOT RESPONSIBLE for how Israel came into being (nor for the ill motives that the west may have had in bringing it into being--i.e., getting a foothold in the Mideast oil fields). They are stuck, all of them. They are trapped in war and hostility. They feel they have to defend the ONLY homeland for the Jews. And the Bush Junta has USED THEM to make LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF MONEY.

Similarly, the Christian nutballs. And other members of the sick Bush household. All used. Not innocent. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that the U.S. WAR INDUSTRY does not give a crap about Israel, or Christianity, or conservatism, or the people of the Middle East, or the reputation of the United States, or the welfare of its people, or the lives of its soldiers, or anything at all. They are an out-of-control WAR PROFITEERING BEAST, and Bush is their puppet president. They manufactured a war out of nothing. And they don't even care if they "win" it. The point is to make more money--more and more and more--to extend it as long as possible.

Ike was right. And we're really in the soup now. We are drowning in the blood and oil of the "military-industrial complex."

"...the Kagans and Neocons seem utterly bent upon forcing the abandonment of post-war enlightened thought and conduct in favor of a return to a state of universal barbarism..." --rcdean

So well said! I see it. I feel it. BUT...what I'm saying is that they are merely window-dressing. They would have no power, and their ideas would have no currency, if the WAR PROFITEERS weren't in charge, and weren't paying them and promoting their views. America is not a militaristic country. We are not Nazis. We are not fascists. You don't see Hitler's youth parading in the streets. If anything characterizes us, it is that we are traders and inventors--much more like the ancient Phoenicians than like the ancient Romans. We've had a layer of Roman imperialism laid on top of us--BY the military-industrial complex--but our impulse, our inspiration, is to keep the government out of our lives, except for promoting the common welfare (infrastructure, labor and environmental laws, regulating the "robber barons," and providing safety net for the poor), AND it has also been our impulse and inspiration to resist imperialism. We despise big centralized government (except for the common welfare), and have battled imperialism every time it has reared its ugly head. Imperialism does not sit well on us. Not at all!

But we are trapped, in our own way, like the Israelis. Trapped by history. And, above all, trapped by the bastards who came out of WW II as the global corporate predators of the future--the battleship builders, the warplane manufacturers, the bullet factories, the shippers of oil to our fleets, the engineers of everything from pontoon bridges to nuclear weapons laboratories, the makers of helmets, uniforms, tents and food rations--the lot--fattened by the necessities of that war, and never demobilized. And they've been manufacturing war ever since. And are now grown into a monster.

They even have control of our election machinery now--with rightwing corporations "counting" all the votes with electronic voting machines, run on TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code. And it's all about the war--manufacturing a phony war, then manufacturing a phony endorsement of that war in 2004.

And they have their professors, and their war profiteering corporate news monopoly columnists and commentators--all bought and paid for--to give it a gloss of theory, and to try to keep certain constituencies mollified. But the theory whores don't drive the tank. Nor does Israel. The CEOs and corporate board members of multi-national war profiteers and oil giants are driving this war, and, ultimately, are driving the U.S. of A. right off a cliff. Cuz they really, really don't care. They've all got "golden parachutes."

---------------------------




*(I am very concerned that their next project is the oil, gas and minerals of the Andes, and that their next target is the Andean democracies--all gone leftist--Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador (and next election cycle, Peru). South America in general--Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador--is taking the intolerable position that South American resources belong to South Americans, and should be used for the benefit of the people who live there. All of these countries--virtually the entire continent--have elected leftist governments, to get them out from under U.S. domination, and to forge a new policy of self-determination and regional cooperation, including an EU-type organization with a common currency, like the euro (get off the U.S. dollar). The Bush Junta has been pouring money (OUR money) into the Colombian military ($600 million this year alone), and into an air base in Paraguay, with strong rumors that the Bush Cartel has purchased 100,000 acres in Paraguay. They have also, of course, relentlessly slandered and opposed every good democratic development in South America. They have poured our money into fielding rightwing candidates in these countries, against the peoples' choices. They have failed, in almost every case. U.S. global corporate predators are surely grinding their teeth about this. Will the Bush Cartel now launch a corporate resource war on their behalf? Is this what the billions stolen from us with the Iraq War are to be used for? Billions to private military contractors and mercenaries. Billions into the pockets of all the Bushites and the oil giants. Multi-millions to one of the last fascist dinosaurs in South America--Colombia. It is very worrisome--not so much for fear that it would succeed. I don't think it will. But because of the death and suffering that they can cause.)

[rcdean]

38. Brilliant reply. You are so right....

We are all trapped -- as trapped as were the medieval serfs -- by an economic system that favors the wealthy (money makes money), dependency upon modern essentials like oil, and a political system manipulable by propaganda and electronic vote theft. ("We are all just prisoners here of our own device!")

I especially like your observation that the modern day war machine originated, essentially, out of WWII. That's exactly right. The cure for the Big War 2 became the monster that now controls us.

And, yes, I agree that it is profiteering and economic muscle that call the shots, not the whisp of intellectual legitimacy provided by the PNAC crowd. Still the veil of right wing bs must be pierced wherever it can be. Our only weapon is the truth. Our only hope is that this war machine frankenstein will be some day understood for what it truly is by a more enlightened electorate that will eventually defund it.

[westerebus]

54. American policy and the innocent Israelis.

When the godfather of neocon-ism brought his ideas into the White House, Regan was president. Simple plan, put American Marines into Beirut to show just who had the muscle in the neighborhood. This was the first meeting of the American military and the opposition to the nation state of Israel in the middle east.
A new tactic was employed against us,a suicide bomber. We lost 250 Marines.The fate of American Israeli policy was sealed with their blood. The neocons had sucked us in.
Look who was in the that administration and tell me the Israelis/neocons are innocent? The same war profiters,think tank talking heads, right wing militarist are in this administration. Henry the K and Baker are back too!
Oil is a commodity. All it takes is money to get it. Their are plenty of sellers out there. We print the money.
The enemy of my enemy is my brother. You think Cheney didn't call Henry K after calling on the Saudis to get a green light on Iran?
Things are going to get really really nasty.
GET the TROOPS OUT! OUT NOW!

[blitzen]

33. very nice job!!! where did you put it on amazon?

a review of one of the Kagans books, I presume...

[rcdean]

35. The While America Sleeps paperback I think it was.

There were several worshipful reviews up there that really pissed me off. I just don't understand the right wing compulsions to use force, to constantly dominate others, to play a zero sum game all the time. But when you see that kind of primitive thinking adorned with a facade of intellectual legitimacy, you just can't let them get away with it unanswered, imo.

[goforit]

47. Did you see the "The Power of Nightmares" by BBC? great series of flics

on Youtube.
The Kagans play right into the Fantasy of Team B of the CIA with Strauss as one of their mentors.

Sick bastards I say.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. Kagan is a disgrace to any meaningful sense of the term

"intellectual." I've seen him many times on the Pentagon Broadcasting Service "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" and he always manages to either a) lie about historical fact or b) so over-simplify as to have the effect of a lie.

[Roland99]

9. They saw the results of "Operation Together Forward" in Baghdad and its failure

why would repeating that work now?

[westerebus]

16. Why the brass said : "what troops?"

The last thing any general wants is to command the retreat out of Baghdad. Hell, they don't want to command the redeployment to the border.
A surge is what operation "zippo" was in Viet Nam. We tried burn the place down. Which did not go over well. The generals know that.
Its much simpler to blame the politicians for losing the war. It was the peace that we lost,but that's an other debate.
Get the troops OUT! OUT NOW!

[BobF]

34. Blast From The Past

How well I remember THESE words...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html

"And that's the way I will continue to conduct the war. I'll listen to generals."

I do believe that the War Monkey was lying when he said those words...x(

[Shipwack]

19. Well, it seems that order of vertebrae has finally arrived.

That, and every single one of them is afraid of being held up as bad examples of military leadership to future generations of academy students.

Or maybe these bootlickers have finally realized there aren't going to be enough neo-con think tanks left over when all is said and done to employ their sycophantic asses.

[rodeodance]

20. the question of WHAT is the MISSION keeps popping up.

[smoogatz]

Yep.

If we send 20-30,000 new troops, what, exactly will they be asked to do? The CW is that the mission will be to secure Baghdad, which will almost certainly mean taking on al Sadr and his militia, the Mahdi army. Which will likely lead to direct assaults on the Green Zone and heavy U.S. casualties. And why do McCain and Junior favor the idea of a "surge" in order to secure Baghdad? Because they feel it's the only way to restore the American people's support for the war, that's why (even though only 12% support sending more troops). Those additional troops will be on a PR mission, in other words. It's incredibly cynical.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Why, keeping Chimp a War Preznint is the mission, of course.

Can't see any other possible reason.

[coalition_unwilling]

41. Not to mention "What is victory?" n/t

[Jim__]

21. Amazing that these fools keep contradicting our military experts on military policy.

Maybe the first time they did it, it could be understood. But, they've already been proven disastrously wrong in their military policies. You'd think they might learn something. A little humility, maybe?

Never elect a man president whose daddy has protected him from the consequences of all his mistakes.

[pberq]

22. "No graceful exit"

Surging to defeat - it's all about the egos of those at the top.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x252055

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/12/18/surging_to_defeat_in_iraq.php

". . .What seems clear is that the president is determined that the war not be lost while he is in office. But events are moving too fast for that. It was not quite the way he meant it, but Bush has gotten one thing right; there will indeed be no “graceful exit.” That goes in spades, if he sends still more troops."

". . .A “surge” of the size possible under current constraints on U.S. forces will not turn the tide in the guerrilla war. Reinforcement of Bagdad several thousand U.S. troops last summer simply brought on more violence. Those who believe still more troops will bring “victory” are living in a dangerous dream world and need to wake up."

[PinkyisBlue]

25. A couple of comments about this war (and administration).

In countless articles having to do with the Iraq War, as well as other subjects, official after official is quoted "on the condition of anonymity". They are all so afraid of publicly speaking out against the policies of this administration. What are they so afraid of? Isn't the USA supposed to be a democracy, which prides itself on the free flow of ideas? It's pretty scary to think these govt. officials are so afraid of their own government, they have to speak anonymously.

Because his whole life has consisted of one colossal failure after another, Bush is determined that the Iraq War will not be declared a failure on his watch. It's really that simple. He figures he can get more troops into Iraq and drag the war on until the next presidential administration, at which point troops will be with-drawn and the war declared a failure. The media will blame the war's demise on the next administration, not this one. (I think they are taking the same tack with the economy, which is not doing as well as the numbers say it is, and the next administration will have to take credit for its collapse and deal with all of Bush's failed policies).

This war has been so mismanaged from the beginning. Due to inadequate troop numbers at the start of the war and failure to secure the stockpiles of weapons and ammunition found by our soldiers, the insurgents are using these same weapons to fight us. I remember reading how thousands of weapons and tons of ammunition found by our troops "disappeared" because there weren't enough soldiers to secure them.

[jarab]

26. "They are all so afraid of publicly speaking out against ......"

The military is more obligated to the UCMJ; not democratic at all. They can't speak out less they harm/end their career and their families' future. Plus there's also punitive measures, like Leavenworth.
It can't wisely be done publicly.
...O...

[Morgana LaFey]

31. And civilians would lose their jobs -- there's something to be said

for speaking out anonymously while still staying in power (i.e., not getting fired), so as to try to influence outcomes.

[goforit]

48. Scared of?.....They are scared of being murdered by this rutheless Cabal.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. It's great to read that the generals are trying to take a firm stand

on what they know to be the absolute truth. They obviously realise that this not the time to play politics to further their careers at the expense of their troops and the nation. I hope their expertise is deferred to in this matter in the same spirit.

[coalition_unwilling]

37. The only language BFEE understands is the threat of "mass

resignations." Were the Joint Chiefs to threaten to resign en masse, that might cause BFEE to back down. Otherwise, given the Dems lack of spine (viz. Harry Reid on Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopolous"), we will see another two years+ of cannon fodder being chewed up on a meaningless (and missionless) conflict.

[sillyphoenix]

44. Who authorizes a military draft?

Can it be done by executive order, or would * actually need Congress' approval?

:scared: Just a thought... hopefully

[Akoto]

49. It requires the approval of Congress.

Without the consent of Congress, the draft can't be reinstated. In the case of this particular "war," it's so hated that I certainly can't see the Democratic Congress giving any such permission. It would be outright political suicide for those who do.

Here is, by the way, an old but good article written by someone with whom I've corresponded before:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/nodraft.htm

[sillyphoenix]

55. why thank you

*breathes sigh of relief*

Guess that's not gonna happen.

[lovuian]

50. The Military is on a precipice are they sheep and fall off it

or do they THINK for themselves and DO Something...

[IndianaGreen]

51. Even Hitler's generals turned against him in order to save the army

They even tried to assassinate him in a desperate attempt to save what was left of Germany.

[MGD]

52. It didn't work though. In fact, it backfired severely. Hitler was emboldened

by his survival and the conspirators died miserable deaths for their efforts including his best general, Rommel. If I know Bush, he isn't going to quietly accept mutiny either. That extra carrier group heading to the Gulf isn't necessarily just a show of force and he is still the supreme commander of all U.S. forces and, as such, he can throw the troops into harms way whenever, wherever, and however he wants too.

[ShortnFiery]

56. I pray that OUR Joint Chiefs of staff unanimously resign their

commissions. THAT statement would send shock waves through the American Populace.

Again, I pray that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remember that their loyalty is to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America. NOT to support a wannabe dictator who has, to date, has destroyed the reputation of the USA and it's laudable military throughout the World. :(

Do the right thing EACH MEMBER of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Our Democratic Republic depends on your patriotism now more than ever.