Joint Chiefs UNANIMOUSLY Oppose Adding Troops
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
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html
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are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets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.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
_____________________________________________
Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.
Submit via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive
