White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops

[ProSense]

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.

Snip...

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.

Snip...

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.

more...

Can't stay, can't surge, can't define, can't withdraw...

Time to set a timetable for withdrawal. No more phony arguments:

It's time to admit it's over in Iraq

[BOSSHOG]

1. Its a good thing bush has incredible leadership skills

He'll be able to save the day. Listen to any brilliant conservative scholar with a microphone and they will tell you that everything bush has done in Iraq has been correct. That the tally of our kids deaths is just a number, that more get killed in car wrecks. That we are actually winning and if it takes more deaths so be it. Thank god we have a good christian man like george bush leading our troops into battle.

[The Count]

2. Nice of the Joint Chiefs to finally chime in...still, * knows more than anyone

having listened to so many people, so...good luck with those objections!

[Double T]

3. The ' holy bush crusades' are about to end.............

the 'indecision-er' will no longer be at the controls of 'HIS illegitimate war'.

[Nite Owl]

4. What would those headlines say

if it were a Dem in the WH?

Dem President refusing advice of the military chiefs
Dem President seeks to bring us further into quaqmire
Dem President wants more troops killed
Dem President is too stubborn to listen to military

And the repukes in Congress would be demanding his resignation and bringing out his lack of military experience, how he has desimated the military, wasted money and how they would be cutting funding for the war to stop the massacre.