Last week, the WaPo noted that the White House, hoping to rally support for a “double down” troop escalation in Iraq, was running into some resistance among the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since then, the division has grown more stark — the Bush gang has rallied behind the idea of sending up to 30,000 more troops into Iraq, and the Joint Chiefs are unanimous in their opposition.
[T]he 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.
This strikes me as a rather stunning story. The nation’s top uniformed leaders see a disaster in the making and appear to be convinced that the president not only has no plan, but has no clue.
Bush could “surge” 30,000 troops, the Joint Chiefs believe, but it would likely only make matters worse, with more al Qaeda attacks, more targets for Sunni insurgents, and more foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to attack U.S. troops. For that matter, the Joint Chiefs suggested that well-armed Shiite militias would lie low during the escalation, only to retake the streets after it’s over. The Joint Chiefs also warned, the WaPo noted, that “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.”
But other than that, they love the idea.
I don’t mean to make light of this; it’s obviously a dreadful, dire situation. But the larger dynamic is also bordering on ridiculous. The top uniformed leaders in the military want the president to give them a reason to support an escalation, and he can’t. He wants to “surge,” not because it’s a good idea, but because he can’t think of anything else. The Joint Chiefs don’t think that’s good enough. So, what’s next?
Kevin Drum summarized this nicely.
If the Chiefs stand their ground, it will be very difficult for Bush to buck them. But if he gives up on the surge, what possible alternative can he offer that even remotely seems like a serious change of direction? Rock, meet hard place.
And as long as we’re on the subject, it’s worth adding that Americans have been hearing about an escalation plan for a few weeks now — and they’re dead set against it.
Fewer than a third of Americans still support the war in Iraq, and more than half say they want U.S. troops out of the country within a year, according to a CNN poll released Monday.
Support for the conflict fell to a new low of 31 percent in the poll, conducted Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation, while a record 67 percent expressed opposition to the nearly 4-year-old war.
Nearly three-quarters said Bush administration policy needs a complete overhaul or major changes. But only 11 percent of those polled backed calls to send more American troops to Iraq, as President Bush is said to be considering.
As Jay Leno recently joked, “CNN said today that President Bush is seriously considering sending more troops to Iraq. So apparently, his goal is to achieve a negative popularity rating.”