Options Sought for Surge in U.S. Troops to Stabilize Iraq
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 — Military planners and White House budget analysts have been asked to provide President Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more. The request indicates that the option of a major “surge” in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review, senior administration officials said Friday.As the WSJ article pointed out yesterday the Iraqi government doesn't want more American troops. In addition:
Discussion of increasing the number of American troops, at least temporarily, has coursed through Washington for two months, as a possible way to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad. But the decision to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specify where the additional forces could be found among overstretched Army, Marine and National Guard units, and to seek a cost estimate from the White House Office of Management and Budget, signifies a turn in the debate.
Strikingly, the surge proposal has not been actively promoted by the top commander in Iraq. General Casey, the senior American commander in Baghdad, has emphasized faster training of Iraqi security forces, an effort that would be supported in part by converting existing combat forces into trainers.So the Iraqis don't want more troops, the commanders on the ground don't want more troops and the American people don't want to send more troops. John McCain will get what he wants which may well end any possibility of a run for president. Even the military realizes that any benefit will be very short lived.
Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American commander in the Middle East, has said that the advantages of a surge in troop levels would be temporary, and that it might dissuade Iraqis from doing more to provide for their own security.
The first catastrophic President in American history indeed.