When it comes to an escalation in Iraq, the public is against it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are reportedly against it, and many of the troops themselves don’t seem too keen on the idea either.
Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don’t appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.
President Bush is considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units. White House advisers have indicated Bush will announce his new plan for the war before his State of the Union address Jan. 23.
In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army’s 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.
Spc. Don Roberts told the AP, “I don’t know what could help at this point….. What would more guys do? We can’t pick sides. It’s almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions.”
Sgt. Josh Keim, who is on his second tour in Iraq, said, “Nothing’s going to help. It’s a religious war, and we’re caught in the middle of it. It’s hard to be somewhere where there’s no mission and we just drive around.”
Sgt. Justin Thompson added that a troop surge is “not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni.” Thompson, whose 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June, added, “This is a civil war, and we’re just making things worse. We’re losing. I’m not afraid to say it.”
Now, these are comments from one battalion, not a poll with a random sample, so it’s difficult to say with any certainty that “the troops are against escalation plans.”
That said, a) kudos to the AP for getting so many soldiers’ perspectives; and b) how, exactly, do the remaining supporters of the war dismiss the opinions of the Army’s 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, patrolling the streets of Baghdad? Cut-and-runners? Defeatocrats? Surrender monkeys?
And as long as we’re on the subject of escalation, it was surprising to learn that new Defense Secretary Robert Gates apparently has some concerns of his own.
With President Bush leaning toward sending more soldiers to pacify Iraq, his defense secretary is privately opposing the buildup.
According to two administration officials who asked not to be named, Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in Iraq on his first day on the job, December 18, at a Pentagon meeting with civilians who oversee the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines.
The view of the new defense secretary appears to be at odds with the leanings of Mr. Bush, who is expected to announce a new troop surge when he unveils his new war strategy next month.
I hate to sound picky, but isn’t this the kind of story that the media should pick up on? A highly controversial policy move in the midst of a highly controversial war has divided the president and his Pentagon chief. Shouldn’t this, you know, spark a few questions?
As Josh Marshall put it, “Where is [Gates] on this? Is he going along with a policy that the last year of study of the situation has actually convinced him is bound to fail? Is he silently trying to upend the policy from the inside? Certainly the Post and Times reporters can tell us more on this, right?”
It’d be nice….