White House Press Secretary Tony Snow accused the media of trying to fabricate a story that does not exist (this is becoming a disturbing trend for Snow, who accused an NBC reporter last week of being a partisan when he quoted a part of the Iraq study group report). A Reuters news article quoted Snow as saying the following:
"I think people are trying to create a fight between the president and the Joint Chiefs where one does not exist."
According to the article, Bush hasn't made a decision on Iraq, and has asked military commanders to consider numerous options on how to proceed forward:
"So the idea that there is a decision and a squabble would be wrong," Snow said.
Of the WaPo article which reported of the possible White House, Joint Chiefs squabble this morning, Tony Snow said:
"I'm saying, tonally, it's wrong."
Incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) also said that he was skeptical about a troop infusion to Iraq:
"I don't think it will change a thing. It could actually exacerbate the situation even further. And I'm very concerned about additional burden on the Army and Marine Corps."
Not only that, but like I wrote this afternoon, many members of the Joint Chiefs feel a troop infusion may do nothing more than provide more "targets" for insurgents in Iraq, and create a broader appeal for terror recruiting.
In November, General John Abizaid, the U.S. military commander of forces in the Middle East said:
"Troop levels need to stay where they are."
Like the Iraq study group, Abizaid has rejected calls for troop increases, as well as any plan for immediate withdrawals. I agree with the General in that BOTH an IMMEDIATE withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq, AND an infusion of U.S. troops could EACH spell potential disaster.
In another story today from The Washington Post, Bush said that he believes the overall size of the army needs to increase. He told the WaPo that he planned to expand the size of the military to deal with a long term fight against terrorism.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
I'm curious to know how the President plans on doing this, in an all volunteer force. Here's an idea that may help boost enlistment levels though: why don't we try paying our military members A DECENT WAGE, a wage that actually enables them to support their families? Why don't we stop telling BLATANT LIES to new recruits? Why don't we stop giving pay raises to members of Congress, and instead give raises to those who really need them, and deserve them, members of the U.S. military.
Another point of interest is this quote from Bush, where he seems to hint that the "war on terror" (not specifically just the war in Iraq) may be one that the U.S. is going to be involved in for a long, long time:
"It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace."
Yes, and you're doing a fine job of that in Iraq, Mr. President. He went on to say the following (pay close attention to the bold text):
"There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?"
Not quite sure what to make of that. Is Bush trying to say that it's going to be his way or "the highway" for Congress when it comes to his "war on terror?"
Regardless of whether or not the Joint Chiefs and the White House are at odds over troop levels (although I will say I have a feeling there is more truth to the WaPo article claiming there is a rift between the two, than Tony Snow's denial), any "infusion" of U.S. troops to Iraq, temporary or not, would be absurd. As the Pentagon has said, it would do nothing more than provide more targets to insurgents, and broaden the appeal for terror recruiting in the Middle East.
For all those interested, here are some additional interesting facts to consider regarding the U.S. military and the war in Iraq:
- The army has temporarily increased it's size from 482,000 active duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,00 today.
- That number will soon be increased to 512,000.
- The army wants to make the 30,000 increase permanent.
- After making the 30,000 increase permanent, the army wants to grow by about 7,000 soldiers or more per year.
- For every additional 10,000 soldiers, the army estimates a cost of about $1.2 billion per year.
- For the fiscal year that began October 1, 2006 - the U.S. cost in Iraq are likely to exceed $110 billion.
- For the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2006 - the U.S. spent $120 billion in Iraq.
- On Monday (December 18), the Pentagon said there has been a 22 percent rise in violence in Iraq over the past three months.