Surgin' Generals

It didn't take long for the Pentagon to ramp up its consideration for a "surge" in troops after the ISG report suggested that a short term bump in numbers might help quell the violence there. It is probably the only recommendation that soothed the agitated heads in the White House and the Pentagon. the problem for the so-called "military planners" -- apart from an apparent inability to plan -- is that they will likely have a difficult time finding these extra troops. Numbers are ranging from 15,000 to 50,000, though the upper part of that range seems extremely unlikely, despite the fact, that when the Pentagon likes to dump gasoline on a fire, it usually likes to dump a whole lot. But they are constrained by their own poor planning to date. Soldiers are stressed, have suffered multiple deployments and stop-loss orders, while many are already wondering what the hell they're doing there anymore.

It is intuitive within the halls the Pentagon that pouring more soldiers into Baghdad will help cease the violence. This is how the military always thinks. More force is always better. But this consideration looms in contrast to what some commanders actually in Iraq believe. With the spectrum of opinion about whether more troops or fewer is the "way forward," the one thing that does seem clear is that there is nothing clear about what the effects of more troops will actually be, both for the situation in Iraq and for the readiness of the US military in general.