Joint Chiefs reject 'Surge' plan.

[SirNitram]

WaPo!

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the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.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.

[FSTargetDrone]

Gah, this counts on so much to go right...

We (the US) is really stuck, aren't we? Leave, and it gets worse. Stay, and it gets worse before it gets better (if it gets better).

[Big Phil]

It's Vietnam all over again, only with fewer US casualties... of course Shrub and all of his cronies will reject the comparison, but it's exactly the same - we can't leave because then we'll lose, and we can't stay because we can't win.

[Medic]

It's Vietnam all over again, only with fewer US casualties... of course Shrub and all of his cronies will reject the comparison, but it's exactly the same - we can't leave because then we'll lose, and we can't stay because we can't win.

Honestly. I myself have noticed more than a few, but here's a self-contained one-stop-shop on that notion.

My favorite excerpts:

IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM. Apples are not oranges. Whatever. We know they’re not the same in terms of military tactics and KIA rates and local circumstances and geopolitics. But in the panoramic view of American hubris and failures, the quagmire and the sandstorm are starting to look like mirror images.

SHADY BEGINNINGS
Gulf of Tonkin Incident
Weapons of Mass Destruction

MONOLITHIC BAD GUYS
Red Menace
Global War on Terror // explains the battle-of-civilizations and WWIII mentality, in addition to the WWII comparisons

PRE-EMPTION DEFENSE
“We’re fighting the Commies in Saigon so we don’t have to
fight ‘em in San Francisco.” // this one surprised me the most, they really said that? Hindsight is 20/20 though I do rightly believe the modern incarnation to be BS regardless of this knowledge
“We’re fighting the terrorists in Baghdad so we don’t have to
fight ‘em in Boston.”

RIGHT-WING DELUSIONS
“Light at the end of the tunnel”
“Stay the course”

PRESIDENCIES TORPEDOED
LBJ’s ratings tanked; he bowed out of the following presidential elections and saw his dreams of a Great Society die; became a tragic figure
GWB’s ratings tanked, he cost the Republicans control of Congress, his daddy’s friends have to bail him out; became a comic figure // with I think, the important caveat that GWB also had a Katrina he bungled; I have serious reservations about the mid-term going as good as it did if there isn't a Katrina, I really don't see the voters caring enough

Also, RE:Olbermann's Special Comment on GWB's trip to Vietnam in November.

[Coyote]

Well, it depends on the nitpickery level tolerated. In the over-arching sense of hubris and folly it can be compared to Vietnam, but only so far. In Vietnam there was a civil war already underway, with two different governments (North & South) and we chose one and slowly escalated with advisors. Whereas in Iraq we started with a largely unified country with one strong government and made it into a civil war.

But I do think we've learned a lot from Vietnam, and with that in our background I think we can limit ourselves in Iraq due to that awareness. The fact that we're dealing with this damn issue head-on and moderate;y rationally shows definite progress.

That the Joint Chiefs is rejecting the notion of pouring good money after bad, so to speak, is encouraging. But most of our lessons are retroactive rather than proactive-- had they been proactive we could possibly have avoided the whole thing in the first place (however, I still contend that we would have been involved in a MidEast ground war at some point, regardless).

[SirNitram]

Frankly, the lessons of Vietnam that aren't based on jackassery were only learned by the Pentagon. This is why we see alot less casualities and fatalities.

The Administration only learned two things: Gag the media, and leaving is losing. Bush himself has stated the latter.

Worse, of course, is Bush's flat out delusions. Now, think-tanks and private egos are driving this 'Surge' nonsense, such that the military doesn't want it but it seems increasingly likely to actually happen.

[K. A. Pital]

I agree with Nitram's assessment. American military has learned lessons from Vietnam. America, I mean it's government, has not.

[Darth Wong]

I agree with Nitram's assessment. American military has learned lessons from Vietnam. America, I mean it's government, has not.

You are too kind. The reality is that the majority of the American people didn't learn from Vietnam either, which is how Bush rode into Iraq on a huge wave of popularity. Pinning the blame on the government is the politically correct thing to do, but it's not really the factually correct thing to do.

[SirNitram]

The re-writing of Vietnam into 'It was all the media's fault' and 'Goddamn hippies lost the war' has been running quite effectively. Even the educated members of this board have occasionally fallen to the propaganda. Hell, look at the idea that vets were routinely mistreated. How many cases actually happened?

The worst of it all is in the depths of the Right Wing Echo Chamber, though. I've seen everything up to and including PTSD being a 'Wuss excuse' and 'junk science'.

[K. A. Pital]

You are too kind.

Well, you saw beyond the words. The original looked like "America didn't.". All. Then I corrected it. Why?

I was nitpicked just earlier for saying that the Japanese are bigger dicks than the Germans (for not acknowledging their WWII misbehaviour, let's say it that way). I guess I just decided to be a bit politically correct, because sometimes the nitpicking can really tire you.

[Darth Wong]

You are too kind.

Well, you saw beyond the words. The original looked like "America didn't.". All. Then I corrected it. Why?

I was nitpicked just earlier for saying that the Japanese are bigger dicks than the Germans (for not acknowledging their WWII misbehaviour, let's say it that way). I guess I just decided to be a bit politically correct, because sometimes the nitpicking can really tire you.

True. If I got nitpicked that way, I would have simply responded "fuck off, you nitpicking ratfucker"

[Ariphaos]

I agree with Nitram's assessment. American military has learned lessons from Vietnam. America, I mean it's government, has not.

The government has learned at least two important points - drafts suck, and be careful of what you let the media know.

Unfortunately, regarding the latter point, Americans are by and large either too apathetic or schizophrenically stuck to an ideology that doesn't let them see what the real issues are.

[Vympel]

Abizaid is quitting. He disagrees with Bush's stupid fucking "surge" idea, just like most of the military leadership.

12% of Americans support this idiotic plan.

The Joint Cheifs oppose it.

Abizaid opposes it.

Scarborough Country, of all places- Bush is alone and delusional.

Check out the THEN and NOW section. Flip-flopper indeed.

The Weekly Standard drinks the Kool Aid- We're going to win!

Psychos.

[Galiv]

The re-writing of Vietnam into 'It was all the media's fault' and 'Goddamn hippies lost the war' has been running quite effectively.

Don't forget that while it was all the media's fault and the hippies the US didn't actually lose the war. US forces withdrew in 1973 having never been defeated, the war was lost by the South in 1975

This is one legacy that will haunt the US again. The US was never defeated militarily in Vietnam and is one reason for the painful revisionist bullshit that still comes out almost 40 years later. Never beaten but still managed to lose.

The US will never be defeated in Iraq militarily and 40 years from now many people will still not accept the war was "lost" and a total failure.

[Patrick Degan]

Worse, of course, is Bush's flat out delusions. Now, think-tanks and private egos are driving this 'Surge' nonsense, such that the military doesn't want it but it seems increasingly likely to actually happen.

Quite. NPR this morning had a story regarding the various study-group reports due to follow the ISG's from military, state, and intel sources. But one that's reached the White House already comes from the American Enterprise Institute, which fully endorses the Surge Plan. That's right, folks, the same AEI who were among those who chirped that we'd be greeted as liberators in Iraq three years ago.

Quite predictably, Georgie the Stupider likes it and is going with it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The really bad part is that this whole situation is reminicent of a drunken high school senior beating up the fifth grader that used to rob the other kids of their lunch money before he broke his arm. And then having all the other grade schoolers gang up on him for beating up a little kid with a broken arm.

[The Spartan]

This surge plan is nothing new. A version was tried in late summer in Bagdad and was a total fucking disaster.

Welcome to Stay the Course 2: Stay Harder.