Bush ignored military on Iraq surge
ByAugust 31, 2008
President George W. Bush’s decision to mount a troop "surge" in Iraq last year was taken against the initial recommendations of his top advisers, including his field commander, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Bush’s January 2007 decision to send an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq was criticized for deepening the unpopular conflict but has since been credited with sharply reducing the violence.
Citing secret memorandums and interviews with a host of current and former officials, the Times said Bush’s decision to increase troops for a counterinsurgency in Iraq came after months of tumultuous debate within the administration.
Bush’s tendency to defer to commanders in the field and his defense secretary had delayed a new approach to Iraq until the situation bordered on anarchy and "civil war," as a late 2006 CIA analysis termed it, the Times reported. At that point the Pentagon was in favor of moving responsibility to Iraqi forces, facilitating U.S. troop reductions.
The State Department was pushing an alternative plan to fight al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, reining in Baghdad’s violence and stemming sectarian violence only when it reached the level of "mass killing," the Times reported. The U.S. ambassador to Baghdad was arguing for authority to negotiate a political solution with the Iraqis.
"The proposals to send more U.S. forces to Iraq would not produce a long-term solution and would make our policy less, not more, sustainable," the newspaper quoted ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad as writing in a classified cable.
Members of the National Security Council staff made the initial effort to explore a possible troop increase, and a staff member, retired Navy Capt. William Luti was asked to quietly find out if forces were available, the Times said.
A confidential briefing titled "Changing the Dynamics: Surge and Fight, Create Breathing Space and Then Accelerate the Transition" was submitted in October 2006 after consultation with Army staff. It called for a substantial troop increase, or about five brigades, to Baghdad and other hot spots.
The troop reinforcement proposal split the U.S. military, with some officers supporting the idea, but aides to the Joint Chiefs of Staff suggesting the army was stretched too thin.
Three days after the 2006 midterm congressional elections, the White House convened a formal government-wide review to look into increasing the troop level in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation on November 6 removed some institutional resistance to the "surge" at the Pentagon, the Times said.
Top aides at a November 22 White House meeting outlined an "emerging consensus" on the route ahead, citing widespread agreement that success in Iraq was critical for the Bush administration’s war on terrorism.
A document prepared for the review stated, "Our center of gravity — public support — is in jeopardy because of doubts that our Iraq efforts are on a trajectory leading to success," the Times reported.
At the same time, a classified Joint Chiefs of Staff paper argued for "accelerating Iraqis into ‘operational lead,"’ and proposed measures including assigning one U.S. brigade to each Iraqi division to improve Iraqi troops’ performance.
Even after Bush announced his decision on January 10, the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, never sought more than two brigades, about 8,000 troops in all, the paper said.
9 Responses to Bush ignored military on Iraq surge
pollchecker
August 31, 2008 at 8:42 am
How many Americans have died since Bush decided, against all military advice, to increase the troops in Iraq? This is the REAL TRAGEDY of this surge. Good, brave American lives that will never come home.
And how many people were permanently maimed and injured badly since GW unilaterally decided to escalate combat in Iraq? People have lost arms, legs, eyes, etc. Why? Because GW Bush was not going to be known as the POTUS that withdrew “too soon“.
Now we know why Rumsfeld left. He disagreed with GW and just like the rest…if you disagree with GW, you’re out! Plain and simple. Did anyone see the two dozen retired generals who publicly supported Barak Obama the other night? Bet you don’t see that in Minneapolis.
And let’s see…at $4566 PER SECOND that’s a lot of money spent we didn’t have to spend.
And how much money will be spent by John McCain if he seizes control of our country’s military? How many MORE LIVES will be lost or permanently maimed because McCain has the same mentality and philosophy (or worse)than GW Bush.
GW Bush has very specific reasons for what he has done. What’s McCain excuse?
JeremiahJones
August 31, 2008 at 10:41 am
The “surge” was a smokescreen to cover a secret deal with the leadership of the insurgency. No other way to explain the dramatic reduction in violence. Whatever Bush had to give to get some peace, it must have been politically toxic, hence the “surge.” A few extra boots on the ground don’t account for the hiatus. This also explains the disconnect between the military opinion that it wouldn’t work and Bush’s unwavering conviction (based on inside knowledge) that it would (confounding his critics).
Democrats are of the Devil
August 31, 2008 at 11:47 am
I may have got the surge started. About the time of the surge I was making noise on my Myspace blog about adding more Troops to getrr done. Send everything we got in there and whip the place into shape quick is my philosophy and sure as heck it works. I still say we should have a draft, instead of our young Americans being trained by Mtv we could make them become wise Patriots in the military. This website claims to be non bias towards left wing or Right but that’s fake. I don’t care about a woman’s right to choose, I’m concerned about a babies right to not be murdered by an abortion doctor. The women should not be getting unwanted pregnancy, pretty extreme letting a guy bust a nut in you if ya ask me, slipped tripped and landed on his dick??
gazelle1929
August 31, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I have just recently started looking around on this site, and what you posted is the most patently offensive I have seen here. Why don’t you grow up? If you cannot grow up why don’t you just go away and stay away?
Uncle Ludwig
September 1, 2008 at 3:23 am
This story seems to be a reiteration of information I’ve already seen elsewhere. When Hannity and other blowhards were challenging anyone who disagreed about the effectiveness of the surge, I found numerous chronologies of the time frame that indicated, as Obama asserted during the campaign this past spring, that many factors probably contributed to the reductions in violence in Iraq.
One of the biggest factors was the cease fire imposed by al Sadr on his militia. And yes, there were numerous reports describing the military leadership’s dismay at the White House’s relentless insistence on a surge at this point in the conflict. One general (Casey, I think) last January was lamenting that all planning flexibility had been “sucked out of the system” because of the surge’s demands on personnel and materiel.
One must also note the careful wording used to convey the
supposed lessening of violence. 2007 was, in fact, the deadliest year of the war so far, but there were also fewer attacks, particularly after August (when the cease fire went into effect). So, if the number of attacks was less but the number of killed was more, exactly how do we see this as a “lessening of violence”? That kind of parsing of meaning is always troubling.
Helen Rainier
September 1, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Come on now, let’s be honest here. This administration pays lip service to everything. From the get-go, in spite of their protestations that they “listen to the commanders on the ground” they don’t.
Remember when General Shinsheki told Rummy that initially the Army would need 200,000 troops to go into Iraq and properly secure it? Rummy didn’t listen. Shinsheki was “forced” to retire early.
Just like everything else they have said and done, what they say and what they do are two polar opposites.
Helen Rainier
September 1, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Gazelle — what are you referring to? It’s difficult to ascertain from what you have written who and what you are talking about.
gazelle1929
September 1, 2008 at 9:20 pm
I thought it obvious, and I hate to reprint it, but this is what that person said above that I found particularly offensive:
“The women should not be getting unwanted pregnancy, pretty extreme letting a guy bust a nut in you if ya ask me, slipped tripped and landed on his dick??”
If I am the only person who found that particularly offensive, then I am going to fold my tent and go elsewhere. I cannot believe that people stomach this sort of vile garbage without raising a protest. Is there no sense of decency left in this world?
bryan mcclellan
September 1, 2008 at 9:27 pm
You are not alone.