|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
Skepticism from the Military on an Iraq Surge
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
Issue
|
| Contributor | ArmyDem |
| Last Edited | ArmyDem Jan 04, 2007 02:44pm |
| Logged |
0
|
| Category | News |
| Media | Weekly News Magazine - TIME Magazine |
| News Date | Thursday, January 4, 2007 08:00:00 PM UTC0:0 |
| Description | Without a broader new political and economic strategy, many officers at the Pentagon worry Bush's idea of sending 30,000 additional troops to Baghdad won't change anything
By SALLY B. DONNELLY/WASHINGTON
Posted Thursday, Jan. 04, 2007
When President Bush dumped Donald Rumsfeld after the midterm elections in November, many officers in the Pentagon were elated to be rid of the domineering Secretary of Defense. They looked forward to a day when their views on such crucial issues as the Iraq War might carry more weight with the White House. But as the Administration prepares to announce its latest new Iraq strategy, those same officers may no longer be so optimistic. Bush is widely expected to call for the so-called surge option: injecting some 30,000 new soldiers and Marines into Iraq. But many officers at the Pentagon, including some of the most senior, aren't sure such an increase in the force is a good idea.
The head of the Marine Corps has openly questioned the wisdom of the move without an overarching strategy. "We would fully support, I think, as the Joint Chiefs, the idea of putting more troops into Iraq if there is a solid military reason for doing that, if there is something to be gained," Gen. James Conway, who became Commandant of the Marine Corps six weeks ago, said to reporters recently. "We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers — just thickening the mix — is necessarily the way to go."
Now other members of the military's top brass are quietly questioning the lack of a clear-cut strategy. |
| Share |
|
|
2¢
|
|
| Article | Read Full Article |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
