[Peace-discussion] Top Generals/Chair Joint Chief of Staff Dispute Bush's Plan to Increase Troop Levels
Henry D.
henryduke2004@yahoo.com
Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:20:16 -0800 (PST)
--0-1178705586-1166581216=:42717
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Associated Press:
From General Shoomaker of the Army to General Conway of the Marine Corps:
An Increasingly Restive Armed Forces Bites Back At The Civilian Highjackers Who Transformed September 11th, 2001 Into A Victory For Terror Rather Than A Rallying Call for Unity and Human-Life-Not-Neoliberal Values
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQSITE=COFOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-07-11-17-40
Iraq troop buildup idea worries generals
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 14 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A White House laboring to find a new approach in Iraq said today it is considering an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash. ...
The military's caution on shipping thousands of additional troops temporarily to Iraq is based on a fear that the move could be ineffective without bold new political and economic steps.
Commanders also worry that the already stretched Army and Marine Corps would be even thinner once the short-term surge ended....
Generals also question whether sending more troops to Iraq would feed a perception that the strife in Iraq is mainly a military problem not a political one.
Our patriotic Generals, sworn to uphold the US constitution, and always aceding to their allegiance to civilian direction even took issue with the so-called bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which advocated removing most combat troops by early 2008, saying it could support a temporary increase if U.S. commanders believe it would be effective. Roughly one-third of the 140,000 American troops in Iraq are combat forces.
Bush's statement flew in the face of Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff,days after he, the Army's top general, Peter Schoomaker, warned that the service would "break" without more troops.
The White House on Tuesday denied a conflict between the administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, said Saturday that one option under consideration by the president is sending five or more additional combat brigades, which equates to roughly 20,000 or more troops. Conway did not say he opposes that proposal, but he emphasized the potential drawbacks.
"We would fully support, I think, as the Joint Chiefs, the idea of putting more troops into Iraq if there is a solid military reason for doing that, if there is something to be gained," he said.
"We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers — just thickening the mix — is necessarily the way to go."
He added that using those troops now would mean "a lesser capable" force in the future.
"You better make sure your timing is right," he said. "Because if you commit the reserve for something other than a decisive win or to stave off defeat, then you have essentially shot your bolt."
The Army's Schoomaker told reporters last week that a surge would make sense only under certain conditions.
"We would not surge without a purpose," Schoomaker said. "And that purpose should be measurable."
--0-1178705586-1166581216=:42717
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <DIV><STRONG><FONT size=1>Associated Press:</FONT></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>From General Shoomaker of the Army to General Conway of the Marine Corps:</U></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><U>An Increasingly Restive Armed Forces Bites Back At The Civilian Highjackers Who Transformed September 11th, 2001 Into A Victory For Terror Rather Than</U> <EM><U>A Rallying Call for Unity and Human-Life-Not-Neoliberal Values</U> </EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><A href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQSITE=COFOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-07-11-17-40"><FONT size=1>http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQSITE=COFOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-07-11-17-40</FONT></A></DIV> <DIV>Iraq troop buildup idea worries generals <!-- END HEADLINE --></DIV> <DIV id=ynmain><!-- BEGIN STORY BODY
--> <DIV id=storybody> <DIV class=storyhdr> <DIV><SPAN></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN>By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer </SPAN>14 minutes ago </DIV> <DIV class=spacer></DIV></DIV> <DIV>WASHINGTON - A White House laboring to find a new approach in <SPAN class=yqlink><A class=yqimgins title="Related information on Iraq" onclick="activateYQinl(this);return false;" href="http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Iraq"><STRONG><FONT color=#003399>Iraq</FONT></STRONG></A></SPAN> said today it is considering an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash. <SPAN class=yqlink><A class=yqimgins title="Related information on President Bush" onclick="activateYQinl(this);return false;" href="http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=President+Bush"><STRONG><FONT color=#003399>...</FONT></STRONG></A></SPAN></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The military's caution on shipping thousands of additional troops temporarily to
Iraq is based on a fear that the move could be ineffective without bold new political and economic steps.</DIV> <DIV>Commanders also worry that the already stretched Army and Marine Corps would be even thinner once the short-term surge ended....</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Generals also question whether sending more troops to Iraq would feed a perception that the strife in Iraq is mainly a military problem not a political one.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Our patriotic Generals, sworn to uphold the US constitution, and always aceding to their allegiance to civilian direction even took issue with the so-called bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which advocated removing most combat troops by early 2008, saying it could support a temporary increase if U.S. commanders believe it would be effective. Roughly one-third of the 140,000 American troops in Iraq are combat forces.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bush's statement flew in the face of Chairman of the Joint Chief
of Staff,days after he, the Army's top general, Peter Schoomaker, warned that the service would "break" without more troops.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The White House on Tuesday denied a conflict between the administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, said Saturday that one option under consideration by the president is sending five or more additional combat brigades, which equates to roughly 20,000 or more troops. Conway did not say he opposes that proposal, but he emphasized the potential drawbacks. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"We would fully support, I think, as the Joint Chiefs, the idea of putting more troops into Iraq if there is a solid military reason for doing that, if there is something to be gained," he said. </DIV> <DIV>"We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers — just thickening the mix — is necessarily the way to go." </DIV> <DIV>He
added that using those troops now would mean "a lesser capable" force in the future. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"You better make sure your timing is right," he said. "Because if you commit the reserve for something other than a decisive win or to stave off defeat, then you have essentially shot your bolt." <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>The Army's Schoomaker told reporters last week that a surge would make sense only under certain conditions. <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"We would not surge without a purpose," Schoomaker said. "And that purpose should be measurable."</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
--0-1178705586-1166581216=:42717--