Joint Chiefs Split with White House over Iraq-Nam Troop “Surge”

The Bush administration dismissed the Iraq Study Group’s report before the ink was dry and announced that other reviews were underway. The White House has been kicking ideas around for a month, and sources say that it rather likes the idea of boosting troop levels by 15,000 to 30,000 for six to eight months to pacify Baghdad. The only trouble is the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top warriors in America, unanimously think this is a bad idea. The Vietnam parallel continues, with military expertise being over-ruled by the armchair generals around the president.

The Washington Post reports that “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.” In other words, not only are the politicians telling the generals how to fight, but also the politicians don’t have a strategy for the Pentagon to pursue.

The newspaper added, “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 US military mission or to the Iraqi army.” In other words, what happens when the surge comes to an end and the nation isn’t pacified? Anybody? Anybody?

Further, “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.” Maybe it would be a good idea for the president to be focused on “what you’re trying to accomplish”; that would be an objective for which one could define a strategy. It’s a bit late in the war for that, but still.

This may be the reason the White House has decided Mr. Bush won’t tell the country what his new approach to Iraq-Nam is until January. His dad’s friends, like the Iraq Study Group,are mad at him, and the military guys are mad at him. And apparently a whole bunch of Iraqis are mad at him. Announcing that there will be more of the same right now will only make them madder. Since there isn’t another option that delays the inevitable, though, that’s what the policy will be. Best not to disillusion everyone at Christmas. Meanwhile, the Pentagon reports that violence in Iraq is at record levels.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home