[Texgreen] Top brass turning into surrender monkeys too?

[Roger Baker]

It looks like Bush made a big mistake trusting his Joint Chiefs of  
Staff, who now oppose their commander in chief.

It looks like they're in bed with Osama bin Laden. Just like  
defeatist Colin Powell. Fortunately our president has the courage not  
to cut and run until we finally bring freedom to Iraq. -- Roger

                   ****************************************

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss  
internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly  
opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way  
to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions  
about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it.  
Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military  
planners to be asking."

The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns  
on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term  
surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument  
that the situation is urgent now, the official said. "Advocates would  
say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to plan in the long  
term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have time to  
wait?' "

Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The president's keeping  
his cards pretty close to his vest," the official said, "and I think  
people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and  
information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind."

Robert M. Gates, who was sworn in yesterday as defense secretary, is  
headed for Iraq this week and is expected to play a decisive role in  
resolving the debate, officials said. Secretary of State Condoleezza  
Rice's views are still open, according to State Department officials.  
The principals met again yesterday to continue discussions.
	
The White House yesterday noted the growing number of reports about  
what is being discussed behind closed doors. "It's also worth issuing  
a note of caution, because quite often people will try to litigate  
preferred options through the press," White House press secretary  
Tony Snow told reporters.

Discussions are expected to continue through the holidays. Rice is  
expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford, Tex.,  
after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's  
foreign policy principals are also expected to hold at least two  
meetings during the holiday. The White House has said the president  
will outline his new strategy to the nation early next year.

As the White House debate continues, another independent report on  
Iraq strategy is being issued today by the International Crisis  
Group, a Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several  
former U.S. officials. It calls for more far-reaching policy  
revisions and reversals than did even the Iraq Study Group report,  
the bipartisan report issued two weeks ago.

The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly  
radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its  
diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both  
in the way the U.S. and other international actors deal with the  
Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. deals with the region."

The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as  
"privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem  
the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to  
strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki  
will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating  
crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be  
solved only with a major political effort.

The International Crisis Group proposes three broad steps: First, it  
calls for creation of an international support group, including the  
five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's six  
neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political compromise.

Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including  
militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international  
community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such  
as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of  
Baath Party members and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. Finally, it  
suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with  
Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace  
process.