Among Top Officials, 'Surge' Has Sparked Dissent, Infighting

By Peter Baker, Karen DeYoung, Thomas E. Ricks, Ann Scott Tyson, Joby Warrick and Robin Wright

For two hours, President Bush listened to contrasting visions of the U.S. future in Iraq. Gen. David H. Petraeus dominated the conversation by video link from Baghdad, making the case to keep as many troops as long as possible to cement any security progress. Adm. William J. Fallon, his superior, argued instead for accepting more risks in Iraq, officials said, in order to have enough forces available to confront other potential threats in the region.

The polite discussion in the White House Situation Room a week ago masked a sharper clash over the U.S. venture in Iraq, one that has been building since Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, sent a rear admiral to Baghdad this summer to gather information. Soon afterward, officials said, Fallon began developing plans to redefine the U.S. mission and radically draw down troops.

One of those plans, according to a Centcom officer, involved slashing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by three-quarters by 2010. In an interview, Fallon disputed that description but declined to offer details. Nonetheless, his efforts offended Petraeus's team, which saw them as unwelcome intrusion on their own long-term planning. The profoundly different views of the U.S. role in Iraq only exacerbated the schism between the two men.

"Bad relations?" said a senior civilian official with a laugh. "That's the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801846.html?hpid=topnews

>>>Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Petraeus's deputy, sent a memo to U.S. commanders in Iraq urging them to seek local deals similar to those in Anbar through reward money and nonlethal aid such as radios, clothes and telephones. "Reconciliation is local," he wrote, "and there is no one-size fits all solution to this complex problem." <<<

So the money that could be used for Americans -- for bridges and health care and NOLA and education -- is being spent on radios, clothes, and telephones for insurgents in Iraq?

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?....Earlier this year Condoleezza Rice decided it was time to talk with Iran about its funding of Shiite militias in Iraq. According to today's Washington Post, Ambassador Ryan Crocker was dubious:

When Rice told Crocker to get ready for talks with Iran, he asked her the "blindingly obvious" question of whether Vice President Cheney would allow it, a U.S. official said. Rice, according to the official, told Crocker that it "wasn't your lane," adding, "I'll work it back here. That's not your problem."

Golly. Why were they so concerned about Cheney? All they had to do was get the President of the United States on their side and that would have been that. Right? I wonder why they didn't think of that?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801846_pf.html