(Bob) Woodward: Military Brass Opposed Surge

Source: CBS News


(CBS) A year and a half since the surge in Iraq, violence is the lowest it has been since the invasion. The idea of throwing another 30,000 troops into Iraq was a desperate gamble in a dark time. And only now are we finding out just how much opposition there was by the nation's top military leaders. That's among the revelations in a new book by Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodward.

...

Asked what the generals at the Pentagon thought when presented with the idea of a surge, Woodward told Pelley, "They think that it won't work. And the president actually at one point goes and meets with them. And the Army chief of staff, General Schoomaker, says 'You can't add five brigades, it will take many more,' 'What about another crisis?' 'We don't have troops for this,' 'What about the damage your doing to the force, the young kids who see nothing but endless rotations?'"

"What does General Casey, sitting in Baghdad, think of having additional troops?" Pelley asked.

"He thinks that Baghdad is a troop sump-a place you can put endless numbers of troops in. And he does not want to add force," Woodward said.

"The president, who has said in public, endless times, that he relies on his generals to tell him what they need, is actually going his own way here," Pelley remarked.

"That's right," Woodward agreed. "The records of the joint chiefs show that the idea of five brigades came from the White House, not from anybody except the White House."



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/04/60minutes/main4415771.shtml

are now on the US payroll. Insurgents who were formally attacking US soldiers trained their guns on Al Quaida after the lettuce showed up. Could have done it years ago and probably saved thousands of American lives. Didn't take a genius to do this just a little common sense. Look at it rationally, with the Sunni insurgents on our payroll and on our side we most likely didn't need the extra troops. That was just to make the Democratic congress look bad if operation "money surge" worked. Our liberal media won't report on the cash payouts to our former enemies.

When the cash stops flowing, they'll start shooting at either US or the Iraqi government. The only effective measure on whether the "surge" worked is whether the country can sustain itself in one piece when we pull out our soldiers and our money.

military officers ready to take the stage at the Convention for Obama. These men and women did not want the war and little boots sent them packing.

Then some of 'em retire. When I run out of those, I just go with my gut feelings.

I wish there were a way to double capitalize stuff in the title line. The letter "I" needs more emphasis.

the "surge" "worked".

As long as our troops are hidden away and not getting killed as often, the rightwingnuttery can trumpet bush's "surge".

:eyes:

I'm quite certain it wasn't a success for them.

If al Sadr would not have announced a ceasefire in August 2007? Did the surge cause al Sadr to make this announcement or was it a political decision in Iran that the fastest way to get the American's out was to discontinue the offensive and eliminate the reason for their being there.

Since there has been scant progress on political reconciliation (one of the key components of the surge) there is little reason to believe that fighting will not increase after the American's leave. Then what? Bringing the troops back could well end the al Sadr ceasefire. (Besides, where would they come from)?

"early retirement" or "resigned".

"I always listen to the Generals on the ground."

No, I never believed him when he said that either.

Let the controversy begin

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=kQUVYRrcT3M