Please read Shaun’s post from today: The Generals Draw a Line in the Sand. This post is merely a round-up with opinions from other bloggers about this.
Here we go:
Eventually true statesmen recognize that their historical moment has passed and subsume their ego to the good of the country. LBJ did it. Sadly, I think that we can all acknowledge that Bush is not LBJ. Recognizing failure is not in his lexicon. The idea of Bush subsuming his ego to anything is laughable. The fighting will go on, the army will break and the political ground will continue getting worse for Republicans until they find some way to pull the plug.
Particularly note that last bit – when it comes to personal gratification versus the good of his own party the President has no qualms about choosing the former over the latter. Ask any ex-Congressman whether he or she would have preferred to see Rumsfeld gone sooner.
I have no doubt that Bush was dead serious when he said that he would go on with nobody but Laura and Barney at his back. So what does his party plan to do about it?
How many more years will it take before we get “a plan”? Honestly, how many more? And why aren’t all Americans standing up and asking that same damned question? And beyond that, why aren’t more people asking this:
Will anyone get beyond the view that “we have to succeed” to actually ask the question as to whether it is possible or likely?
What we shouldn’t do is reinforce failure, and if the plan is to just enlarge operation “Forward Together” then the JCS have to advise against it and ask for a more specific mission with a time frame for the deployment. The time for one-over-the-world nebulous missions is over.
It is important that politics don’t dictate a move, but instead sound military planning is its impetus.
It is the leadership’s job to properly utilize the military within their capabilities and capacity. That means providing a precise mission which fits those characteristics. The JCS are completely correct to oppose anything less.
Rick Moran at RWNH:
The point is simple: There is no purely military solution – either American or Iraqi – to the security problems in Iraq…
Any actions we take to increase our troop strength must be taken in concert with political moves by the Iraqi government and – if it can be done – with other countries in the region who have either an involvement in the conflict or a stake in the outcome. I am not overly optimistic about a regional conference to help resolve the problems. But there is simply no alternative to working with the Iraqis on the political problems that fuel the insurgency and the sectarian violence. If the Iraqis refuse to help themselves by trying to heal the numerous cracks in their fractured body politic, I fear that any additional American troops would simply add to the problems and not accomplish much of anything.
…I just wish I didn’t have to think: “Great, if the Joint Chiefs are saying it’s a stupid idea, liberals can’t be blamed for stabbing the Army in the back when it doesn’t work.” I hate feeling as if I have to worry what side the military leadership is on politically — I don’t like it whichever side they’re taking. It’s not the Joint Chiefs’ fault; they haven’t done anything wrong. But they should be technical advisors, not leaders of a politically influential faction, and they’re getting treated in the media as the latter rather than the former.
James Joyner at Outside the Beltway asks:
Unless there is a fundamental restructuring of the strategy, there is no reason to think adding more “boots on the ground” at this stage would be helpful. What, precisely, would be the military objective?
Here’s my advice: listen to the Generals. Believe it or not; they tend to know a lot about this kind of stuff.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.