Joint Chiefs oppose surging

Things are really getting interesting in the internal fight over what to do about Iraq. It's pretty clear that Bush has made up his mind to surge, but the Washington Post tells us the Joint Chiefs are opposed:

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 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.

As Kevin Drum says, "Rock, meet hard place." What does Bush have left to him to announce if he can't surge?

Withdrawal? Never.

The only alternative is, "stay the course," which is the worst alternative of all from a political perspective. At least a surge makes him look like he's trying to do something different.


My prediction. The Joint Chiefs will back down.