Yesterday on Fox News, the president said he'd review the Baker-Hamilton recommendations on Iraq but he also added: "More importantly, when it comes to military matters, I want to listen to the military, to come up with a way of achieving our objective quicker. And so this is an important period." But with Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey on the way out, what will the military be saying to Bush on Iraq? Tuesday's Wall Street Journal offered a hint:
As demands mount to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, a growing number of senior military officials are arguing that the only way to salvage the situation is to add more U.S. forces and more U.S. money. Outside the military, most of the debate is focused on a U.S. troop withdrawal. But inside the Pentagon, the recent dismissal of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has given some new life to arguments by military officers who say the U.S. must pour more troops and money into the country to expand the Iraqi army -- the one institution in Iraq that has shown some promise -- and stabilize the capital. Right now there are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Though there are no firm plans for an increase, some military officials said that as many as 30,000 more troops could be needed. Most of the U.S. troops would be focused on patrolling Baghdad and training the Iraqi Army…. Senior military officials seeking to make one last push to stabilize Baghdad might find a receptive ear with President Bush…. Most military officers, however, seem to believe that a pullback of U.S. forces would only trigger more violence and make political compromise in the country impossible. These officers argue that 20,000 U.S. troops are needed to bring order to Baghdad. Another 10,000 U.S. soldiers would also be needed to work as advisers with the Iraqi Army, which currently numbers about 134,000 troops and might need to double in size. Military officials who advocate such an approach warn that it could take years and hundreds of billions of dollars. But many of these officers bristle at the idea that it is too hard or impossible. "The notion that we can't provide protection for people in one of the capital cities of this world [Baghdad] is just rubbish," says retired Gen. Jack Keane [former Army vice chief of staff], who has made trips to Iraq to meet with commanders and provide recommendations to senior military officials. Gen. Keane, who advocates sending more U.S. forces into Baghdad neighborhoods and bolstering the Iraq Army, says he is speaking for himself….
Some have suggested that US forces should basically vacant Baghdad and focus on the Anbar province. Let the militias run wild in the capital. Somehow I doubt letting Iraq's captital slide into a full-scale, 1970s Beirut makes much overall military sense.