At Last …
Someone is saying it. If we want to win in Iraq, we need more troops, not less. The Wall Street Journal reports on a resurgent view among senior military officers:
The push among the uniformed military to do more in Iraq is being driven, in part, by a small study group working for Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The group’s work, which is classified, lays out several options for Iraq. But it seems to favor a temporary increase in U.S. forces as part of a broader effort to build the Iraqi Army, says an officer familiar with its work.
The officers’ recommendations largely run counter to Mr. Rumsfeld’s own ideas, which were revealed in a leaked memorandum written by Mr. Rumsfeld in early November and published yesterday by the New York Times. In the memo Mr. Rumsfeld suggests a pulling back of U.S. forces to bigger bases and possible withdrawals of U.S. troops “so the Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.”
Most military officers, however, seem to believe that a pullback of U.S. forces would only trigger more violence and make political compromise in the country impossible. These officers argue that 20,000 U.S. troops are needed to bring order to Baghdad. Another 10,000 U.S. soldiers would also be needed to work as advisers with the Iraqi Army, which currently numbers about 134,000 troops and might need to double in size.
Military officials who advocate such an approach warn that it could take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. But many of these officers bristle at the idea that it is too hard or impossible.
It was true four years ago and it’s true today. With Rumsfeld out of the way, this view apparently is gaining new momentum, perhaps proving the old adage for the cun-and-run crowd, be careful what you wish for. If President Bush puts forward this position with the military’s support, it will be very hard for Congress to dismiss it. To achieve the goals of stability in and around Iraq, to counter our enemies in the region, and not least to maintain the status of the United States as a world power, this is what has to happen.
Dan Riehl just hopes it isn’t too late.
Talking Points Memo notes there are some seriously mixed messages coming out of the White House about which way direction they are heading on this matter.
Victor Davis Hanson, meanwhile, reflects on losing as a matter of perspective, and wonders “Do we have another Sherman, Patton, or Ridgeway?”
Hanson lists a series of dark moments in American wars, when determination to stay in the fight made a difference, and he adds:
That is not to say that simply staying the course will bring victory without radical changes in tactics and strategy—but that ability to change quickly and fundamentally is nothing novel in American history.
The Carpetbagger enjoys watching the administration squirm.
Michael Barone sees a little Churchill and Truman in George Bush.
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 2:02 am Comments (1) on Monday, December 4, 2006
One Response to “At Last …”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 4th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Another call for more troops from Jeff Jacoby at Townhall.com:
“Far from drawing down the number of troops in Iraq, Bush should increase them. The Rumsfeldian “light footprint” theory — the belief that the US military presence in Iraq must be minimized so that the Iraqis learn to maintain security and stability on their own — has been tried now for more than three years. It hasn’t worked. At least in the short term, there is no prospect of restoring order and stopping the bloodshed without many more American boots on the ground.”