Quin, I think you're being too hard on the Joint Chiefs, because if you examine the article closely it seems that their objections are based on the fact that the proposed increase in troop levels would be modest and temporary. In other words, the increase would be large enough to incite our enemies and provide them with more targets, but it wouldn't be big enough or be sustained long enough to get the job done right.
Specifically, the article says:
The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in
Iraq — including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias — without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.
The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to
Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.
The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a
U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn — then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.
I'm a firm believer that if we had gone to
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.