Post Saddam removal and de-Baathification of Iraq, met with challenge against effort as it prevented full Int'l peace-keeping support. This wrought with it, the escalation of violence....

“My understanding of the article is that the JCS want to know the mission first, numbers second”
“and the Joint Chiefs, along with every other person in this country, is asking GWB if he might not consider maybe devising a plan and some specific objectives in Iraq.”

President Bush has stated he wants to undercut terrorist support and establish a Middle East democracy.
It is part of the JCS job to come up with strategic military objectives to do that. Then it is the Combatant Commanders responsibility to come up with the specific plans (strategic and tactical) and the specific numbers to accomplish those objectives.

If you want to hear that it is a crisis and dire situation there then listen to the MSM. If you want the truth, talk to the majority of soldiers over there not just the one great whiner in a thousand the press seam to find.

As a stockholder in this errant, financially hemorraging corporation, I want the CEO to show some competence and some urgency, or I will support finding someone who will.

You don't need to cherry-pick to find the strategic failures compounding as we sit here jabbering. They're falling from the damn sky and there's no cover.

Well, when the entire right side of the debate, yourself included, frames the issue as having only two options:
- Send more troops in, or
- Pull all the troops out, cut-and-run style; or, as you yourself phrase it: "total withdrawal from Iraq- regardless of the impact to Iraqis or the GWOT in general"

...and if the intent is to keep our troops in Iraq until "victory", and the use of troops in Iraq runs counter to any progress towards "victory", that would imply that they're going to be there for a long damn time, wouldn't you say?

At some point, the Iraqi security forces will have to be let to sink or swim on their own, but there needs to be some sort of concrete, standards & competency-based handover plan.

Well, isn’t that what the PLAN has been ALL ALONG?

In a word, no. The INTENT may have been to do that, but until someone, anyone, in the administration puts forward a coherent statement about what those standards and competencies are, it's highly dishonest to call it a "plan" - hence my earlier sarcasm. In other words, to say "we'll do it until things get better", without making the slightest effort to define what "better" actually means, is a shit plan. It also lends further credence to the lefty position that our troops will be there until Bush goes away, regardless of what does or doesn't happen, i.e., indefinitely.

And finally,
On getting help across borders, I’m not sure the ones manufacturing the bombs and training the murderers are the ones to help.

That thing countries do when they're not shooting, bombing, or invading each other? It's called diplomacy. You and GWB might want to look it up.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."

You guys are too much. Of course you will see what you want when cherry picking the report and repeating it out of context.

Here we have our officials looking for viable alternatives. You offer cut and run, and impeachment.

You don't want a solution, all you want is for heads to roll. Which puts you in no different position than you were in immediately following the inauguration.

At some point, the Iraqi security forces will have to be let to sink or swim on their own, but there needs to be some sort of concrete, standards & competency-based handover plan.

Well, isn't that what the PLAN has been ALL ALONG?

On getting help across borders, I'm not sure the ones manufacturing the bombs and training the murderers are the ones to help.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives

My understanding of the article is that the JCS want to know the mission first, numbers second. And the white House is throwing smoke grenades with the second question because after four years they are still drawing a blank on the first.

Wayne, I don't give a rat's ass about the political objectives of the JCS or the reporters who follow them. We have no defined objective in Iraq and in a competent administration, anyone who tried to change the subject from this question would be removed from authority at this rather advanced stage in our entrapment within Iraq.

Please read Shaun's post from today:......

Anymore I don’t put a whole lot of trust in these so call unknown sources. What political agenda do they have? Did they put the statement in context? Did the lie? Is it an actual source or another made up one?

More or less troops are in constant debate within the military. Have there been a consensus with the Generals in the field that we need more troop? I don’t know. Things change but the last time we heard from them they said no. JCS is another group.

Anderson
You are the one lying by trying to say Bush said, “What the generals think best”. He said if the Commanding General in the field wants more troops he will get them. It easy to claim someone is lying when you lie about what they said.

Although they do not agree with pouring more troops into Iraq short term, it appears they may support such a notion WITH a revised strategy attached.

And this, in itself, is pretty dammning. It's December 2006. The White House wants to put anywhere from 30k to 50k more troops into Iraq. And the JCS is not confident there is _any plan_ for _what_ those troops would do or how they would contribute to the mission there.

Shouldn't that scare the piss out of every one of us?

Based on the rest of your comments, I perceive your positions to be total withdrawal from Iraq- regardless of the impact to Iraqis or the GWOT in general?

Reading is _still_ fundamental, LJD. I'm saying the current "plan" (for lack of a less-insulting term) of using combat troops to: fight an insurgency, rebuild a national infrastructure, stabilize a society in utter chaos, prevent/stop an open civil war, maintain social order (despite the fact that our civilian leadership _still_ doesn't know whether or not to keep Iraq whole or allow its partitioning), train a new-from-square-one military and police system (while simultaneously rooting out corruption, terrorism, and infighting from same) is _never_ going to work. It will only _decrease_ all the measures important to the US, including the number of troops coming back home alive.

But as I said previously: COMBAT TROOPS ARE NOT THE ONLY TOOL WE HAVE.

What _can_ we do? We can work with the surrounding countries to get them on the side os stabilizing Iraq rather than making it an easy black eye for the US. We can lean on contractors to actually perform the work they're being paid for - actually rebuilding the infrastructure rather than whitewashing the blatant profiteering. At some point, the Iraqi security forces will have to be let to sink or swim on their own, but there needs to be some sort of concrete, standards & competency-based handover plan. If that means we have to transport the units somewhere safe (even out of Iraq) to be trained, then so be it.

How's about them apples?

But comprehension is even better. I think you read too much into comments by the Joint Chiefs. (Keep in mind also the SOURCE). Although they do not agree with pouring more troops into Iraq short term, it appears they may support such a notion WITH a revised strategy attached. The key words here are SHORT TERM:

'The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.'

These are the gaps what the Joint Chiefs are talking about filling. They are NOT saying 'cut and run'.

Based on the rest of your comments, I perceive your positions to be total withdrawal from Iraq- regardless of the impact to Iraqis or the GWOT in general?

As for “viable alternatives,” guess what? Bush has f—ed up Iraq so badly, there *aren’t* any.

I'm not sure if there are _no_ viable alternatives, but I am certain of one thing: there are no viable _military_ alternatives. You cannot fix what's wrong with Iraq by using the US military any more than you can paint a house with a hammer. Sending more troops, for any length of time, will not help any more than painting with a bigger hammer. Unfortunately, Bush is too stubborn and, frankly, stupid, to grasp the use of anything other than force to accomplish anything.

When the White House says that, it's lying.

As for "viable alternatives," guess what? Bush has f---ed up Iraq so badly, there *aren't* any.

It's like a supporter of the Japanese war party in March 1945 turning to his political opponent and saying, "great, so what viable alternatives do you have?" The word is "fubar," and the sooner people realize that's where Iraq is, the sooner we can have a serious discussion about it.