Skip to comments.White House studies options for increasing troops in Iraq (20,000 to 30,000)
Posted on 12/16/2006 10:11:48 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Military planners and White House budget analysts have reportedly been asked to provide President George W. Bush with options for increasing American forces in Iraq
Iraqby 20,000 troops or more.
Citing unnamed senior administration officials, The New York Times said the request indicates that the option of a major "surge" in troop strength is gaining ground as part of a White House strategy review.
Discussion of increasing the number of American troops has gone on in Washington for two months as a possible way to reverse the deteriorating security situation in Baghdad, the report said.
But the decision to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specify where the additional forces could be found signifies a turn in the debate, according to The Times.
Officials said that the options being considered included the deployment of upwards of 50,000 additional troops, but that the political, training and recruiting obstacles to an increase larger than 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be prohibitive, the paper said.
At present, only about 17,000 American soldiers are actively involved in the effort to secure Baghdad, so even the low end of the proposals being considered by military and budget officials could more than double the size of that force, according to the report.
If adopted, such an increase would be a major departure from the current strategy advocated by General George Casey, which has stressed stepping up the training of Iraqi forces and handing off to them as soon as possible, The Times said.
The details of the plan under study by the White House are not known, but in most scenarios the troop increase would be accomplished in large part by accelerating some scheduled deployments while delaying the departure of units in Iraq, the paper said.
If for no other reason than it is diametrically opposed to what the Iraq Surrender Group recommended.
Either get 'er done or get out.
How do you tell if you're done?
'Getting out' isn't now, nor ever has been an option for victory.
One place to start would be al Sadr in a coffin.
When I say get out, I don't mean get out of the country. I mean get out of the streets of Baghdad. Let the Iraqis handle the police work. Most of our casualties aren't coming from battle but from patrolling. Our soldiers right now are just targets. For the most part they're not initiating fights.
We should mass on the border of Iran and Syria and in the Green Zone. Let the Iraqis sort out the mess. We accomplished our objective in ousting Saddam, eliminating WMD programs, and setting up a democracy. It's up to them now.
Or we need to bring in more troops and deal a crushing blow to the terrorists without having to worry about not damaging mosques, political correctness, etc.
After all, our military is over there simply to "win hearts and minds."
And at Drudge, the Slimes guy is putting out the opposite. Until W says it ... looks like a lot of rumors out there.
Incoming NYT Ed Page Editor Says 'Its Becoming Likely' Paper Will Call for Troop Withdrawal from Iraq
Fri Dec 15 2006 17:29:02 ET
Incoming editorial page editor of the NYT says "its becoming more likely" that the paper will call for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, in an interview today with C-SPAN's Brian Lamb for "Q & A", airing Sunday at 8/11 p.m. ET. Andrew Rosenthal assumes the post Jan 1. A link to the video clip is at the end.
Lamb: Do you think you'll eventually call for us to get out of Iraq?
Andrew Rosenthal- Wow, should I answer that question?
Lamb - Absolutely.
Rosenthal- I think its becoming more likely.
I mean I don' t know what George Bush is going to say. We've been going through this very odd spectacle this week of all these meetings and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. We actually wrote about it this week.
I mean, are we really supposed to believe he just started thinking about it this week?
What are these meetings about? Are we supposed to believe the Army just started thinking about it this week? I mean its crazy. It has to be true that he's just going through this for some crazy public relations stunt.
It depends on what he says - if he comes up with a plan that could lead in some reasonable period of time to an orderly withdraw than that's one thing.
If he sticks to these fictions about achieving victory and all the other things that he keep talking about then we may have to change.
It really does depend, I mean, we're going to withdraw our troops from Iraq and we're going to do that without initiating a fully functioning government that serves as a beacon of hope for the Middle east.
I mean its interesting and very instructive to go back and look at last year's strategy for success in Iraq strategy included: defeating terrorists, establishing full democracy in Iraq, an independent army, and an Iraq that is part of the international economic system, I don't know what that means.
Are they supposed to join the IMF or the WTO I don' t know what the heck that means.
And this kind of burgeoning democracy throughout the Middle East well none of that 's going to happen, I think that's pretty clear - at least not in George Bush's timeframe.
Too bad this "educated" man can speak without "I mean ..."
I'll bet Al Quaida, the Sunni's, et all are really scratching their heads now.....NOT what they likely expected to hear.....they're waiting for the DEMS to cave.
If they go forward with this McVain will be pissed!
If his masterplan of sending in more troops doesn't turn Iraq into a flowering democracy before the election he will also get the blame!
We are going to win
Before the Democrats all start screaming about Bush ignoring the ISG, they should read page 50 of the report:
"We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."
I bet a bunch of high school students could have articulated those thoughts a lot better.
BTW..one thing I wish they would do in Baghdad is outlaw any moving vehicle EXCEPT the military...for as long as it takes to clear out the terrorists.
I know it isn't "practicle"....but it is the car bombs, bicycles, vans etc. that carry the large amounts of explosive material.
I really don't like it when a freeper lies about the mission in Iraq just to be cute.
I really don't.
Tell you what, D. You say that to the families of our fallen heroes who have died in combat against terrorists. Tell that to the the soldiers and Marines who have taken part in capturing or killing thousands of terrorists to protect Americans at home.
Go ahead. Say that line and insult them to their faces.
What has been funny is to hear all of the pundits and reporters complain about Pres. Bush not giving his speech until January...saying that it is too dangerous to wait.
What do those nitwits think is going on over there? Do they think the military is just sitting in their barracks waiting for Pres. Bush to make his speech??
People are afraid to shoot at you.
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Things are coming to a head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.