1) Wash Post page 1:
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
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.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html
2)
Leigh M. writes:
A recommendation I didn't see in the ISG report...
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Shi'ite prime minister called on Saturday for
the return of all officers of Saddam Hussein's disbanded army...
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-12-16T195852Z_01_COL153081_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml
Hard to believe but it WAS pretty much there (not quite spelled out). That
is part of what I meant when I posted earlier that the Report's
recommendations imply a "tilt" towards the Sunnis. See Recommendations 27
and 37 regarding "reconciliation" and amnesty - they strongly propose that
only the "leading figures" of Saddam Hussein's regime be excluded from
involvement with the current government.
Since then there has emerged lots of reporting about the pro-Sunni or Shia
subtext in the Washington maneuvering - naturally each side is only in it
for their own purposes. For Baker et al, leaning Sunni is needed (right
now) to ensure a civil war stalemate. They also have with their long term
interest in maintaining status quo with the Sunni oil producing states
(Baker et al include the "go-betweens").
The pro-shia's (Cheeney et al) desperately want to have a plausible claim
to having "turned the corner" before Bush leaves office and their long run
hopes towards the Sunni gulf is more like "regime change" (they include the
oil majors looking for a return to ownership and the neocon strategic
planner types).
In this context, the Pentagon issued today a major new assessment of the
violence that was actually completed last month. It chooses to highlight a
new and increased danger posed to U.S. troops by the Shia militias. One
would imagine the CIA is the next to be heard from (it appear that Condi
Rice is holding back).
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/world/middleeast/19military.html?hp&ex=1166590800&en=08f04a0664d01d71&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Paul
