SPRING BREAK BLOG: “Troop strain increasing, Joint Chiefs tell Bush”
Troop strain increasing, Joint Chiefs tell Bush
|
Robert Burns
Associated Press
March 27, 2008
WASHINGTON – Behind the Pentagon’s closed doors, U.S. military leaders told President Bush Wednesday they are worried about the Iraq war’s mounting strain on troops and their families. But they indicated they’d go along with a brief halt in pulling out troops this summer.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff did say senior commanders in Iraq should make more frequent assessments of security conditions, an idea that appeared aimed at increasing pressure for more rapid troop reductions.
The chiefs’ concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon’s ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.
Wednesday’s 90-minute Pentagon session, held in a secure conference room known as “the Tank,” was arranged by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to provide Bush an additional set of military views as he prepares to decide how to proceed in Iraq once his troop buildup, which began in 2007, runs its course by July.
“Armed with all that, the president must now decide the way ahead in Iraq,” said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The discussion covered not only Iraq but Afghanistan, where violence has spiked, and broader military matters, said Morrell, who briefed reporters without giving details of the discussion. Some specifics were provided by defense officials, commenting on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely.
The Joint Chiefs are particularly concerned about Afghanistan and an increasingly active Taliban insurgency.
The United States has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan and 156,000 in Iraq.
U.S. forces in Iraq peaked at 20 brigades last year and are to be cut to 15 brigades, with a total of about 140,000 combat and support troops, by the end of July. A key question facing Bush is whether security conditions will have improved sufficiently by then to justify more reductions.
Gates has said he would like to see the total drop to 10 brigades by the end of this year, but that now looks unlikely.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has proposed what is commonly called a “pause” to assess the impact of having withdrawn five combat brigades since December. He has argued that it would be reckless to shrink the American force so rapidly that the gains achieved over the past year are compromised or lost entirely.
Bush is expected to endorse Petraeus’ approach. If, as expected, Petraeus is given until August or September to weigh the effects of the current round of reductions, then it is unlikely that the force would get much below 15 brigades by the time Bush leaves office in January.
In their session with Bush, the chiefs laid out their concerns about the health of the U.S. force, several defense officials said.
“The conversations today with the Joint Chiefs were much broader than just Iraq,” Stephen Hadley, Bush’s national security adviser, said later. “It was a step-back look of what are the challenges we face here in the next decade.”
The president is to give a speech today in Ohio on the political and economic situation in Iraq.
NC – Connection
“It was a step-back look of what are the challenges we face here in the next decade.”
The thought that we might be stuck in Iraq for another DECADE is quite frightening to me. Most everyone agrees that there is mass chaos in Iraq right now; what would there be if we left today? Chaos would still be there I’m quite sure so what’s the difference. I don’t understand why there are over 150,000 troops in Iraq right now when obviously their not making a ton of progress and the country continues to rebel against them and kill them. I understand that we’re trying to help out a developing democracy but really no huge difference seems to be being made and it’s wasting lives and a lot of money.
I think John McCain is crazy to think that we’re going to be in Iraq for another hundred years as he’s said in campaign speeches, absolutely insane. To think that we’re going to be supporting another country by force for even another ten years is unfathomable. Each candidate for 20008 president has a distinctly different view on how to solve the conflict in Iraq and I really hope that one who doesn’t want us there for all of eternity wins so that these tired troops can go home.
The Iraq War is a war on an idea. How can we actually win when there are many countries that believe in terrorism? Not only do we have troops in Iraq, but Afghanistan. I mean, we have troops in other countries too, so we can play the job as the “world policeman”, but the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are focused on terrorism. Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, wants the troop numbers to decrease greatly within the next year, however that seems doubtful. The Secretary of Defense, as I learned from some of the summaries, is the principal defense policy adviser to the President and is responsible for the formulation of general defense policy and policy related to all matters of direct concern to the Department of Defense, and for the execution of approved policy. The war seems like a war that we can never win. We might be able to help the Iraqi government straighten itself out, but it is nearly impossible to make all terrorists stop being terrorists. I’m not completely sure though to what action the US should take. I don’t agree with what some of the Democrats are saying with pulling the troops out as soon as possible because I think that would lead to complete chaos. I also don’t think that the troops should stay in Iraq for the next 10, 20, 30 years.
Personally, I have to say I really find these kinds of articles interesting. After reading chapter 20 (well the summary anyway) a lot of what goes on with these kinds of meetings and the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s roles make a lot more sense to me. In this instance Bush was trying to get as much information about the happenings in Iraq so that he can make a well educated decision. The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, is considered Bush’s top advisor on military policy and Admiral Mike Mullen is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These two men play a very important role in advising the president on what the options are for foreign policy and what should be done. I have to agree with how they seem to have advised President Bush. For me I think that the troops should eventually be pulled out, however, I think if it is done too soon then all of the lives lost and injuries will all be for nothing. On the other hand, I also agree that we need to be prepared for anything else that might happen elsewhere, we don’t want to have too many troops in Iraq if any of the other powder kegs of the Middle East decide to attack. I think we all want to see a conclusion to the whole Iraq affair yet, I also think it needs to be done efficiently without compromising everything that has been accomplished in these past years.
Lindsey Devaney
Many people in class feel that we should take troops out of Iraq. We have so many soldiers in Iraq and Bush keeps the troops and doesn’t take them out. We have 20 brigades in Iraq. Now from this article, the pentagon is worried about other crisis’ in other parts of the world. We have no reason to be in Iraq, so why are we risking our security other places in the world? That is not good! I want to feel safe and fell like I don’t have to worry about our countries security but from the sound of this article it sounds like we will need to start figuring out how to spread our forces even thinner; to a dangerous level. It is time to end the war. I am hoping that when Hilary or Barack become president they do actually bring home the troops. I would rather our efforts go toward some good in like Africa or something like that. Not some pointless war that in my opinion can’t be won . Like I said before, this must be like a control issue for Bush… daddy issues. Haha. Also as I said before, we can’t be the Nazi’s and rid the world of all the flaws.
The thing that I personally don’t understand is how Bush can get away with keeping our troops in this unnecessary war when half if not more of America wants this war to be finished and our troops brought home. Frankly I’m shocked he even pulled out any troops, or hasn’t sent more troops overseas. The thing that made me giggle was when I read “it would be reckless to shrink the American force so rapidly that the gains achieved over the past year are compromised or lost entirely.” Can someone honestly tell me what gains we have achieved? We went there for what reason exactly? Oh yeah, it was for oil and our gas prices have almost tripled. But that’s a story for another time, the fact of the matter is that we need to get our troops out of there and fast. We aren’t helping anything over there; we are simply making a bigger death toll. Yeah I’ve heard the old, “we have to fix what we’ve broken” but I don’t see any progress. I think we can all agree that this war is a waste of lives and money. I really don’t think anyone in the Middle East is relying on the US troops to save them from the violence, I think they are blaming us for the added violence. But if you couldn’t tell already I think this article is crap. Bush needs to quit while he’s “ahead” pull out our troops give us our 800$ and get out of the oval office.
I am with Patraeus in this position. Yes the war hasn’t gone as well as it should and there have been mistakes but we can’t just leave Iraq. We leave and take everyone out then Iraq is hosed. We need to finish what we started and pulling troops out is not going to help. I think that this president and the next president need to stick it out and everything will be a lot more beneficial for us. for example, if we stay we get an ally in Iraq instead of a terrorist dictator. And an ally there means we get better stability with the neighboring enemy countries like Iran. But if we give up then all the work in Iraq is lost and then we lost 4000 troops for nothing. This war needs to be followed through. And this war is nothing as bad as Vietnam. In the entire time we have been in Iraq probably around seven years, we have only lost 4000 people. Comparing that with Vietnam I’d say we’re doing pretty good. If Patraeus wants to follow this through then why don’t we allow what he asks? I’m sure he knows more about the progress of the war than us high school students.
From reading chapter 20, we have learned that a lot goes into foreign defense and affairs than simply the President making decisions on his own. Sometimes I feel like people take so much out on the President on the decisions that are much bigger and more involved than they realize. The secretary of state is the President’s key advisor on foreign policy matters. The secretary of defense is the president’s main civilian advisor on defense matters and manages the budget, one that is larger than most nations. The NSC is the National Security Council which coordinates both foreign and military policies. Knowing all of the different people and policies that go into big decision about foreign policy, I think people shouldn’t go straight to the President, because there are so many more people whose opinions go into these decisions. The Iraq war has had so much controversy the past couple years and recently the biggest thing is the troops and how many people believe that they should come home as soon as possible. I do think that the troops should come home, but like many others have said, they probably shouldn’t just pack everything up and leave tomorrow. I think that in order to leave, there has to be a way to know that everything just won’t be completely chaotic. We have also talked in class about how if we pull troops out, ultimately some troops would have to stay. We still have troops in places like Vietnam, where we have been out of for years. So the question is, are we ready to pull out troops and leave just a few, or do we need to still keep troops in Iraq?
NC – Proof Read & Check Your Vocab Use
About that connection….
So anyway, the connection, the Iraq war is one of the most important campaign platforms for the candidates in the upcoming 2008 election. While each candidate has their own plan, priorities, etc, each of them has a different way of dealing with the mess that President Bush has created. I think, as we’ve spoken about in class, President Bush shouldn’t have exercised his prior restraint as commander-in-chief of the military and gone forth with the war on Iraq and a war that is un-winable since it’s a war on an idea and not a war on a country or a group of people, etc. Since he didn’t seek congressional approval to “declare war” as we’ve talked about as one of the provisions of the War Powers Resolution, he doesn’t have to worry about a timeline for when they have to come back and as such they can be there indefinitely. Which is disgusting. Whoever takes over has a large mess on their hands.
The US finds themselves in a sticky situation in Iraq. SURPRISE SURPRISE. This is where President Bush has to balance what’s best for American troops and families with what’s best for Iraqi citizens and stability. There’s also another balance Bush is probably juggling as well: his job as commander in chief with his attempting to achieve domestic tranquility (and with a nation deeply divided about the war, this is probably impossible, so good luck). If Bush agrees to halt troop withdrawal to assess security, this may not sound pleasing to the American ears that want US troops out of Iraq. On the other hand, continuing to withdrawal troops probably won’t please Bush’s party members who are loyal to the war. What a conundrum. But, he led us into this war, so he better lead us through it. With a nation that hardly understands why there are US troops in Iraq in the first place, Bush better make it clear to the nation just why he’s temporarily halting troop withdrawal. If it’s for the soldier’s own safety, then hopefully all will be understood. My guess is though, that this will be a rough awakening to the US people that troop withdrawal is not as easy as it seems, and that pulling out of Iraq will be a long and arduous process.
So last night I went to the Whitworth lecture and it was on the “Iraq End-Game”. The ambassador mainly talked about what our goals were to accomplish while we were over there in Iraq. The three main points were stability, security and prosperity. I would have to disagree with Trevor – I think something would get accomplished if we did really start to pull out of Iraq. We have to start trusting the Iraqi government and see if they are going to be able to function without the United States troops present. I know that the NSC, the National Security Council, (coordinates foreign and military policies) is up to their ears in ideas and proposals on what to do when it comes to Iraq. The president, vice president, the secretaries of defense and state have to deal with a lot and there’s got to be so much pressure. So much of our funding – $103.9 billion, to be exact, has gone towards stabilizing the Iraqi government. Not to mention the $8-12 billion per month for military funding. You can’t tell me that the NSC isn’t getting tired of all of this – especially all the budgeting. I know Trevor said that the war needs to be followed through but I really feel that we kind of have already done that.
U.S. military leaders told President Bush Wednesday they are worried about the Iraq war’s mounting strain on troops and their families. Did they honestly just figure this out? Everyone knows war puts a strain on families and a few years after we lose thousands of people they figure out it is a strain on families. Oh wait Bush does not because he avoided the war. WOW. After watching the ZeitGeist video and Loose Change I am now convinced that all the people dying and this war was caused by the government. The 9/11 attacks could have been prevented, but were not. Bush had warnings but for some odd reason he told people off and that nothing was happening. Of course he did because he was in on it. The F-16’s in Washington were sent to North Carolina before the attacks. So we have no quick air protection. The twin towers and bombs planted inside, so they did not fall by the planes alone. All of the people killed then and everyone killed now can be put on Bush. And he finally decides that they should bring troops out now towards the end of his presidency. What a great man.
This article was interesting to me because it covered my thoughts about the war we are fighting in the Middle East. It shows us how precious the troops we have over there are and that we do need to keep them there in order for all their progress to be completed. When a new president gets into office, if it’s not McCain, then I wonder how the troops are going to come back. Are they going to be happy? Or are they going to be angry because everything that they have been working so hard for over there doesn’t get finished? How are they going to think of the new president? Do we as citizens really know what’s best for the troops? Should we rely on every bad thing the media tells us about the war? This day in age the media has its own policy agenda* without giving us the full story. The truth is none of us really have a clue so we shouldn’t be following the crowd and saying pull out of Iraq unless we are in Iraq experiencing it for ourselves. Do you lose sleep over Iraq? Does it affect your everyday life? Probably not, so why not just stay out of it, and let the people that want to be over there deal with it. Let the people who have the first hand experience decide whether its best if we stay or go, not the public who has no real idea of what’s actually going on.
*Policy Agenda—according to John Kingdon, “The list of subjects or problems to which government officials, and people outside of government closely associated with those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time.”