Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar

The Fall: A Novel

By Ryan Quinn
$14.99

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

White House, Joint Chiefs Clash Over Iraq ‘Surge’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 19, 2006

The U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously disagree with Bush’s plan to send an extra 15,000 to 30,000 troops into Iraq to quell the civil war.


Washington Post:

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching onto 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.

Link

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
TAGS:



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Baghdad Diary: Another Planet

Next item: Jesus at the Box Office



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ljotwell@comcast.net, December 20, 2006 at 10:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Abazaid (sp?) suddenly “retires”?  Another dissenter bites the dust.

Report this

By yours truly, December 20, 2006 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It doesn’t make any difference what the White House or the Joint Chiefs think, because it’s up to us now.  That’s what the midterm elections were all about.  What will it take?  Our changing the world, that’s what, and it begins with TROOPS OUT NOW.

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, December 20, 2006 at 1:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This so-called “surge” isn’t actually an injection of new troops, from what I’ve read. What they plan to do is keep units which are already there in Iraq for longer than the time they were supposed to stay. Their enforced service will overlap with the arrival of the units that were supposed to be relieving them. It won’t be a “surge;” more like a “stuck,” as in “you’re stuck in Iraq, you poor bastards.”

What a filthy shame, that brave people who wanted to serve their country are being so cruelly used by the chickenhawks. And Bush/Cheney will keep squashing them into the meat grinder for two more years just so they can say “We didn’t lose. We never issued any order to retreat.” Vet240, what this reminds me of isn’t Panzer divisions at D-Day, but when the German 6th Army was left hanging at Stalingrad because a certain maniacal dictator couldn’t bear to order a retreat. And we all know what happened to them…

Bush must resign. That should be the left’s battle cry. Otherwise American soldiers will continue to die needlessly. Every day this pathetic loser remains in office, the blood of soldiers will be on his hands.

Report this

By Quy Tran, December 19, 2006 at 9:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nor Bush neither Cheney had power to make any decision regarding governmental affairs. All orders are coming from the neocons. Don’t blame on them.

Report this

By Dave Gerken, December 19, 2006 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Of course there’s dissent. The Joint Chiefs don’t and shouldn’t want to send any more troops unless they are actually allowed to do what they should be doing… Killing thugs.

Having them sitting around on their thumbs and/or dodging “civilians” just isn’t all that productive.

Report this

By Don Knutsen, December 19, 2006 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe its time for a military coup right here in the US. After all we’ve sat on our hands watching the politicians do absolutley nothing while cheney’s hand puppet puts his brand of inept stench on every decision he can ...all with the apparent approval of every single republican but L. Chaffee of Rhode Island and with the timid aquiesence of most every democrat in congress as well. Could the military, which realized that this proposed surge will only worsen a very bad situation, do any worse ? Can we afford to wait out two more years of this insanity because Pelosi and Ried refuse to aggressively go after an impeachment ? We don’t need extensive hearings, the research has been compiled already by Rep.s Conyers and Waxman. That information just needs to be shown to more americans then just the bloggers. Let the Tar & Feathering begin.

Report this

By Rodney Matthews, December 19, 2006 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The joint chiefs have had enough. The american people have had enough. The question is have the congress particulary the democratic party had enough? If so they will do what’s necessary to stop George Bush,even cut the funding for the war. George Bush is out of his mind. Sending more troops will only escalate the violence. We’ll be more targets to kill. We’ll kill more Iraqi’s. For what,to feed this maniac’s ego, so he can stick to his guns,to believe he is never wrong,becaues he believes we can still win. This is not a football game. These are soldier’s lives we are talking about. The financial health of this country could be at risk if we keep pouring money into this fisasco. Give the country back to the Iraqi’s, let them figure it out. If the current leadership can’t get together, then put Saddam back in charge, He’s probably the only one that can straighten out the shithole Bush created

Report this

By vet240, December 19, 2006 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bush and his main man Cheney are buying time. That’s all this is about. They think that if they can keep us bogged down in Iraq for two more years, they and other Neo-con Republicans will be able to blame the ultimate failure in Iraq on the next administration. Sounds far-fetched I suppose.
One might argue, What if a Republican gets elected President in 2008? I don’t think that is going to happen and I don’t think the Republicans think that is going to happen.

The last pig-headed leader I can compare Bush to is Hitler. In a situation the exact opposite to the above, Hitler refused to release some Panzer Divisions to allow a quick counter-strike to the D-Day invasion by the Allied forces. He did this in spite of advise from his Military leadership. Then near the end of that war Hitler demanded that every German fight on in Berlin, in spite of advise from his military leaders that it was a lost cause.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.