Via WaPo: White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops:

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.

I haven’t looked yet, but I suspect that some in the ‘Sphere are howling about treason because this a leak about national security policy.  May I preemptively say:  so what?/there is nothing new or unique about that/sometimes the strategic leak is the only way one part of the executive branch can effectively communicate with another.

Aside from all that, I have to say that this leak has the ring of truth to it:  it is clear that the Bush administration wants to Do Something in Iraq and it has to be something that at least looks like Trying to Win.  The fact that the administration appears to be indecisive about what to do next (while covering that indecision with a patina “deliberation”) further adds to the credibility of this report. (Indeed, the responses of White House spokespersons noted in the story demonstrate that the story is not just based on some disgruntled leaker). 

 It is wholly unclear that this “surge” notion will be successful–indeed, it strikes me as overly simplistic.  As I asked in a post earlier this morning:  if an increase of troops in Baghdad is the magic elixir, why hasn’t it been done by now?

And there is no guarantee that it will work.  As the story notes:

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the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn — then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Update: James Joyner shares my skepticism:

Unless there is a fundamental restructuring of the strategy, there is no reason to think adding more “boots on the ground” at this stage would be helpful. What, precisely, would be the military objective?

Indeed.

Share on Facebook

2 Responses to “JCS not into the “Surge”?”

1. Cernig Says:
   December 19th, 2006 at 2:21 pm

   Hi Steven

   Via the AP and yet another “anonymous official”:

   WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is considering a buildup of Navy forces in the Persian Gulf as a show of force against Iran, a senior defense official said Tuesday.

   Speaking on condition of anonymity because the idea has not been approved, the official said one proposal is to send a second aircraft carrier to the region amid increasing tensions with Iran, blamed for encouraging sectarian violence in neighboring Iraq as well as allegedly pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

   …Bush administration officials have repeatedly declined to rule out the use of force against Iran, though they have also said their first choice is to rely on diplomacy.

   The idea of building up U.S. Navy forces has been discussed over some time and it’s unclear when a decision will be made, the defense official said.

   So, this one’s an offical leak so the uber-right will be OK with that…

   But honestly, the Pentagon is telling Bush he should forget his “surge” in Iraq unless he can come up with a better plan than “stay and bleed” but are happy to send an entire carrier strike group with no better plan than rattling sabers?

   Is it me, or is that “illogical, Captain”?

   Regards, C

2. JCS not into the “Surge”? at Conservative Times Says:
   December 20th, 2006 at 1:12 pm

   [...] Original post by Dr. Steven Taylor and software by Elliott Back [...]