Bending the Third Rail
Because We Should, We Can, We Do
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
So much for only doing what the generals recommend:
According to the Post's sources, the joint chiefs think the White House is pursuing the idea of a surge because there are few other possible options. Meanwhile, they are adamant that increasing the number of troops in the country would create more problems than it solves for the U.S. troops in Iraq. The only real option on the table regarding any kind of surge, would have to involve a specific timeline and mission, which military leaders worry could be exploited by insurgents. The chiefs are allegedly taking a firm stance because they believe the current review of the Iraq situation will lead to the most important decisions since the invasion.
They know what we know, that a "surge" would not change the situation in Iraq and would further stress the military.

By the way. On the issue of a "surge". This is the terminology being used to describe increasing the number of troops in Iraq. What does that word conjure in terms of image for you? The fact is that a "surge" would be more of a leak. The only way troops can be increased is to extend current tours and send a few back. There just aren't the fresh troops available for an airlift of 30K troops. But watch Bush do anything he can to put off the inevitable.

Meanwhile, new SecDef Gates promises an "unvarnished" look at the situation in Iraq. But then he goes on to say:"
Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come,"
I guess his idea of varnishing is a bit different than mine. I think he's gonna be smoked out pretty soon and we'll see exactly where his loyalties lie. Any bets?