Iraq troops plan divides White House and army

Sending 15,000 to 30,00 more troops for a mission of six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy.

December 19, 2006

Washington: The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with Sending 15,000 to 30,00 more troops for a mission of six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy. White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to US officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,00 more troops for a mission of 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, 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 on to 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.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President George W. Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends.

The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq without giving an enduring boost to the US military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by Al Qaida, provide more targets for insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack US troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a US surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn - then re-emerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission - such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad - could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new US strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate.Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.


A senior official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option.

"Of course, military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -what you're trying to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of manpower and strength and all that," the official said.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said.

"Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."

The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now.

"Advocates would say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to plan in the long term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have time to wait?'”

Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest," the official said, "and I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind”.

Robert Gates, who was sworn in as defence secretary on Monday, is headed for Iraq this week and is expected to play a decisive role in resolving the debate.