GATES - Privately Opposing - BUSH SURGE PLAN

[kpete]

Defense Secretary Is Wary of Adding More Iraq Troops
By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 27, 2006

WASHINGTON — With President Bush leaning toward sending more soldiers to pacify Iraq, his defense secretary is privately opposing the buildup.

According to two administration officials who asked not to be named, Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in Iraq on his first day on the job, December 18, at a Pentagon meeting with civilians who oversee the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines.

The view of the new defense secretary appears to be at odds with the leanings of Mr. Bush, who is expected to announce a new troop surge when he unveils his new war strategy next month. Mr. Gates met with Mr. Bush Saturday at Camp David after a trip to Iraq, where the defense secretary met with the commander of American forces there, General George Casey. General Casey said he would be open to an increase in troops, but a spokesman for him told the Christian Science Monitor over the weekend that the general had not formally requested more troops.

The view from the military on the troop surge is murky. The Pentagon's top generals have been on the record before Congress and in the press for the past two years as saying the current troop levels in Iraq are adequate for the balancing act of standing up an Iraqi military and also fighting off largely Sunni insurgents. At the same time, last June's Baghdad offensive, which moved troops to Iraq's capital from other troubled provinces such as Anbar has been widely seen as a failure, as Shiite militias continue their killing spree undeterred. The failure of what was known as "Operation Forward Together" has led to a rethinking of strategy.

more at:
http://www.nysun.com/article/45767

[Benhurst]

1. For all his faults, nobody has ever said Gates is a fool.

Too bad the same can't be said about the Commander in Thief.

[annabanana]

2. That was Dec. 18. . .

I'm sure he's been "brought around" by now.

[sabra]

3. considering that currently the military is averaging 3 KIA a day

doubling that number would not be a good thing :-(

[Peace Patriot]

4. I sure as hell would like to know what is going on with OUR government,

and OUR troops, and OUR money! I mean, WE are the sovereigns here, right? The sovereign people of the United States. We don't have monarchs. WE are the monarch. And SEVENTY PERCENT of us want out of Iraq. So what the hell are we doing there AT ALL? And all this murky business, of Daddykins' "report," and Rumsfeld's exit, and Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" (did she have to say it quite that way, ruling out the only ON-THE-TABLE tool we have to reign in an out-of-control president?), and the Joint Chiefs opposing the "surge," and now Gates opposing the "surge" (or wanting us to believe that he does), yet evidence of a pending Draft keeps surfacing...and still we're there, and still U.S. soldiers are dying, and Iraqis are dying from our bullets as well as their own, in the Bush-created chaos, and Bush is sending battleships to the Gulf, for what? WHAT are they cooking up--these traitors and thieves in OUR White House?

I am very suspicious of this article. And I don't like the word "pacify" in its first sentence. What is that? That is MORE KILLING, KILLING ON A MASSIVE SCALE. That's what "pacify" means! So, is the "surge" already on? Are there troops in those ships? Nukes for Iran? What are they ILLEGALLY--and without consultation with the American people--EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of whom oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war--PLANNING in the Persian Gulf? Goddammit, I paid for those nukes. I've been paying for them all my life. And so have you. And so have all Americans. We are PAYING for all those troops to be there, and battleships, and nukes, and private contractor death squads, and all the rest. Exxon-Mobile isn't paying for it. WE are! And we have a right to more than goddamned rumors out of the Pentagon!

[Neecy]

6. very well said

[European Socialist]

5. Gates was part of ISG-- I Don't think Chimp would have appointed him...

to ignore his advice. Maybe, Gates takes the blame for Iraq aftermath, while Bush gets credit for wanting more troops to save Iraq.

[Avalux]

7. This article is a planned release of info -

whatever they're cooking up in Crawford, it will be designed to save Bush's ass and string us along - all political. Bush would not have picked Gates if he was going to disagree.