Turns out, they're for more troops for Iraq. LA Times:
Top U.S. military commanders in Iraq have decided to recommend a "surge" of fresh American combat forces, eliminating one of the last remaining hurdles to proposals being considered by President Bush for a troop increase, a defense official familiar with the plan said Friday.
The approval of a troop increase plan by top Iraq commanders, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, comes days before Bush unveils a new course for the troubled U.S. involvement in Iraq. Bush still must address concerns among some Pentagon officials and overcome opposition from Congress, where many Democrats favor a blue-ribbon commission's recommendation for the gradual withdrawal of combat troops.
But the recommendation by commanders in Iraq is significant because Bush has placed prime importance on their advice. The U.S. command in Iraq decided to recommend an increase of troops several days ago, prior to meetings in Baghdad this week with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the defense official said.
Turns out nothing's ever really black and white, but sooner or later, it has to be:
"People are warming to the realization that some sort of surge is necessary," said another military official.
Bush recently called for an increase in the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps. But he stressed he had not made a decision on whether to send more troops to Iraq and wanted to speak further with Gates.
Some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain skeptical of a surge, unconvinced that it will yield more positive results than other recent military operations to secure Baghdad or Iraq.
But other military officers have said that a buildup in troops is America's last chance to roll back the sectarian violence, neutralize the insurgency and strengthen the government of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki.
Many military officers maintain that there is no middle ground strategy for Iraq, and that America must either increase the force — gambling that the military can impose a measure of security on Iraq — or else begin to withdraw its forces.
Dan Riehl nots that surge is a necessary part of any plan to deal with al-Sadr. Which is part of any plan to stabilize Iraq and deal with Iran.
Trouble in paradise. Noted and commented upon in the Captains Quarters that al-Sistani is balking at new coalition building across sectarian lines.
13 comments:
The neocons must have upped the book advance Casey will get after he slinks out of Iraq ...
Wonder if he'll be getting Tommy "no plan" Franks kind of money for his book now?
Tommy "no plan" Franks
Are you suggesting the generals prepared poorly and misled the administration about the state of their war plans?
No,
I'm suggesting for the right amount of money, our current crop of generals will do anything the neocons want....including sacrificing their troops in a futile but lucrative gesture.
Not a bad investment, a few million bucks to Casey so he backs the "surge to failure" equals billions of dollars more in defense pork...capitalism at its finest.
our current crop of generals will do anything the neocons want.
That's an even worse accusation.
Of course you're aware the majority of this "current crop" were promoted to general staff or bird colonel level during the Clinton years right?
If you want to indict Clinton for raising a feckless crop of generals, I'd be OK with that.
Like Rumsfeld said - you go with the army you got, not the one you want.
Hehe, there is no such thing as the "army we want" anymore, lew.
America might as well be spending $600 billion a year on buggy whips and steam ships...conventional armies are impotent now, and everyone knows it.
At best, they are just toys for old men to play with while little boys like jules cheer them on.
If the generals want to maintain the fantasy that they can do something worthwhile in exchange for a $4 million book deal when they retire...who can blame them?
Clinton may share some of the blame for continuing the fantasy, but he was never dumb enough to commit our troops to $1 trillion freakshow like Iraq.
conventional armies are impotent now, and everyone knows it.
Expand on this. The NORK's and PRC don't seem down with the idea.
Are you saying America's 200,000 or so combat troops could make a dent in China, PA?
I think they'd just laugh if we tryed to invade them...maybe offer our guys jobs on the Hong Kong Disneyland security force.
Are you saying America's 200,000 or so combat troops could make a dent in China, PA?
Having reading comprehension issues I see. Try it again - slowlllly, read the words one at a time.
Surely you're not using two countries that haven't fought a conventional war in over 50 years to argue that conventional forces aren't impotent now, are you, PA?
Well, you just said the PRC could kick our 200K army's ass.
Which way is it going to be?
With a population of 1,300,000,000...I imagine the Chinese Girl Scouts could beat our entire army rather easily, PA. The PLA could sit back and watch.
The only place the U.S. military can even be maginally effective these days is in rather small third-world countries.
By an amazing coincidence...small and third-world are the only type of country the U.S. military has invaded since WWII.
Except for Vietnam and Korea, of course, where we scored a loss and a tie...
Alphie,
And just what exactly do you base your high opinion of our military prowess against China on?
The only place the U.S. military can even be maginally effective these days is in rather small third-world countries.
It was said Saddam had the 4th largest army in the world in 91'
Quality matters, always has, always will.
Cyrus found that out going up against the Spartans.
Post a Comment