Pentagon Reviewing Three Plans For Iraq

Options Dubbed 'Go Big,' 'Go Long' & 'Go Home'; Congressman Proposes Fourth Option

(CBS/AP)  The debate over what to do about the war on Iraq - complete with catch phrases to describe each plan - has intensified, with word of a secret report on the issue, commissioned by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In Geneva Tuesday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan added his voice to the discussion, urging the U.S. to carefully consider when would be the best time to pull out of the country so that the withdrawal does not lead to a further deterioration of security.

"The United States, in a way, is trapped in Iraq," said Annan. "It cannot stay and it cannot leave. There are those who maintain that its presence is a problem and there are those who say that if it leaves precipitously, the situation will get worse."

Monday, four approaches to the Iraq war were dubbed "Go Big," "Go Long," "Go Home," and "Go Iraqi."

The Washington Post says the first three options are reviewed in a secret report commissioned by Pace: put more troops in Iraq; withdraw some troops but maintain a U.S. military presence for a longer than anticipated period of time; or, pull out all U.S. troops.

Questions would remain for U.S. strategy in Iraq even if troop strength is increased, says retired Army Col. Mitch Mitchell, a military analyst for CBS' Up To The Minute.

"What are they going to be used for? Is this an arbitrary number or is there a real mission for them? How will that mission contribute to the overall mission in Iraq of ending the war?" says Mitchell. "I wonder, if all that has been thought through, or, whether these statements are capricious and arbitrary."

A fourth option - "Go Iraqi" - was proposed Monday by the outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (GOP, Calif.), in a letter sent to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"We have 114 battalions of Iraqi soldiers - trained and equipped," said Hunter, who is considering running for president. "They are spread out throughout the country; roughly nine of the 18 provinces have very little action. In fact, fewer than one attack a day in those nine provinces - half the country. In those nine provinces are 27 Iraqi batallions. Those Iraqi battalions could be sent in to the contested areas in Baghdad and should be sent. The best way to mature a military force is through operations."

"This is a time to test the leadership of Iraqi battalions," Hunter continued. "We could now right now saddle those forces up and send them into the contentious areas... that would stand them up as an operational military force."

Much of the debate in Washington is focusing on the alternatives reportedly discussed in the study commissioned by Pace.

"The 'Go Long' approach is one that can work if there is sufficient strategic patience, resources appropriated and [if] leadership executes effectively," a military intelligence official told the Washington Post.

The "Go Big" and "Go Home" options look more like straw men, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. "Go Big" is a massive buildup to crush the insurgency. That is considered militarily and politically impractical. And "Go Home" considers a relatively quick withdrawal, which most experts believe would end any chance of saving Iraq.

According to Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, the Pentagon is fixated on one option: "Increase now, decrease later."

The military could increase its presence in Iraq by 25,000 or 30,000 in the short term, O'Hanlon told CBS News. "You ramp up in 2007 and then ramp it down to below 100,000 to maybe 60,000 or 70,000 in 2008, but we cannot go higher. We don't have a big enough military."

Sen. John McCain, a 2008 presidential hopeful and Vietnam War veteran, is among those advocating an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq. The Arizona Republican is calling for 20,000 more troops to be sent to Iraq in addition to the roughly 140,000 there now.

McCain said the soldiers who are in Iraq now are "fighting and dying for a failed policy."

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel."

[angryliberal-2009]

Chalk another one up to slick willy.... He cut our military by four (4) battalions while he was in office... Thanks Bill, we are still indebted to you.

This greasy Charles Rangle freak is using the draft as a political tool and a way to "punish" those who oppose his views....that is pretty low and just plain sick...who voted in these irresponsible morons?...oh yeah the American people did.

[wayfedup]

This sounds like ol' BUSH is FLIP-FLOPPING!

[wayfedup]

bushrocks...

Glad to see you have NOTHING NEW TO ADD in a WEEK , now. Still CUTTING AND PASTING! SAD, SO VERY SAD that you still refuse to accept your defeat at the polls, what?going on 3 WEEKS NOW? HAHAHAHAH!

Bush undecided, hmm...the man's staircase
ends three steps shy of the second floor

wayfedup I have already reported his spamming to CBS

[patriotic9]

OK.So Bush is undecided about the troop level in Iraq.Off coarse, he didn't find anything about troops level in any of the versions of BIBLE.He should take either PET ROBERTSON or JOHN HAGEE with him for foreing visit to answer these types of questions.I don't know how many more sacrifices Americans need to give for the 2nd COMING OF CHRIST.

[getcentered]

It was for political reasons that we did not send the 400,000 troops the DOD suggested it would take to secure Iraq. The CIA and pentagon predicted guerilla warfare and predicted that our terrorist enemies would make a fighting ground out of Iraq.

So why didn't we send the proper amount of troops???

The reason: POLITICS.

GW Bush needed the war in Iraq to begin quickly because the neo-cons new they counln't justify military force for long. By this I mean they knew the case for the war was weak, and needed to start the war in IRAQ quickly before everyone else found out the justifications were weak.

Message to Bush, Chenney, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of the White House fools:

I put the blame solely in your hands for the cursory war in Iraq, which you and your sloppy administration led us into.

I WANT FAMILY OF MINE TO COME HOME ALIVE FROM IRAQ. I NEVER WANT CURSORY LEADERS PUTTING MY FAMILIY IN HARMS WAY, WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHY OR FOR DISPUTED REASONS.

Shame on Republicans for their lack of imagination, their poor performance as leaders and their willful ignorance when adapting policies that effect the lives of every American.

[bellal-2009]

I think the study will recommend reducing troops and staying longer.

[shingles1]

Good job Angry - never let an opportunity to blame Clinton pass you by. Facts be damned - full speed ahead!

We can debate Clinton's military legacy till the cows come home - but let's just accept for the moment your flawed premise that this is all Clinton's fault because he cut 4 battalions from the Army:

Well, hasn't Bush had 6 years to add these 4 battalions back? Doesn't this therefore mean that Bush has been derelict in his duty...and, gulp, that he's to blame now?

[lestb35]

"Go big, go long and go home."

Yea, I agree, go long.

[ketch65]

Good thing we went to Iraq, they'd surely of taken over Hollywood and be marching up broadway right now!

If they **needed** to go to Iraq to stifle the Iraqi's from invading America, what they gonna do about all those other countries, that are the same as Iraq?

Hmmmmmmmm and I wonder what leader's going to be willing to be the new and latest butcher of Iraq, seeming as how in time they'll need him outta the way and he'll or they'll end up in the same fix Saddam is in?!?!

At least Saddam kept everything in check! The next person to take control will have to lob a series of attacks against this and that village and the civilian casualties will be HIGH HIGH HIGH, but that'll be different even though it will be the same scenerio Saddam was in all along!!!!!

[ketch65]

I honestly believe this will be the final push that ends up with America being hated not only in the middle east, but the entire world with the G-7 conspiring on how best to take America outta the way.

It will be as coniving and secretive as this Iraqi thing has been for the past 35 years.

I wonder when they plan on crushing America?

Soon I'd say. Imagine all that petrol the rest of the world could divide up when America's not sucking it to point of needing to make war to keep up their endless demand!

America's fate is FIRE, the land of the *** will burn burn burn........!!!!!!

Wake up people!!!

Proverbs 31,

Revelation 17, 18, 19.....

Those four chapters are just a taste of the fate of the great ***.....!!!

[frankly6]

The painful truth might be that we have to bring in Iraq's neighbors and begin diplomatic negotiations to get their help to ratchet down the insanity. It's not a great solution but it's one of the very few we have left because the administration has mismanaged this thing for so long.

Unfortunately this will not happen during Bush's reign. Bush will continue to try to repackage his stay the course nonstrategy until one way or another his rule is ended. As Bush himself said, "I'm going to stay in Iraq if it means the only ones who support me are my wife and my dog." Resolutely stupid to the end.

[shingles1]

Speaking of Bush making America weaker, guess who's been inking all kinds of contracts around the globe while we've been dithering around in the Iraq mire?

China, that's who.

It's almost as if this whole Iraq mess was some sort of genius neo-Trotskyist plan to weaken America. But despite the fact that a number of "conservative" figures were once Trotskyists and Maoists, I'm not one to believe in such conspiracies.

[swsoe]

Hello fellow Americans. Im from central Europe. Let me introduce you my opinion. The problem that USA struggle in is a hard one and I think this time you took too much upon your shoulders. I know it has nothing to do with normal americans that want to live a normal life but its high policy again and suprise its lifes of normal Americans and Iraquis that perish each day. If your country withdraw now it will cause open civil war in Iraq which is already there yet we dont see it much on TV. I dont like Mr Bush policy, but I agree that this is not time to withdraw. US should stay there until sectarians power is broken I know its easy to say hard to do, but this step can change shape of the view we have on american policy here in central Europe. If USA will be able to stabilize situation there it will add big + towards your democracy policy. Now many peole see it only as Oil policy I dont want to be rude but its just that way. Im a student of international studies and this is the top problem we discus now.

[tejasdemo]

Ok. Bush is a moron. His wife is cute. Let's send Bush, Cheney (the "Penguin" ), Rush Limpbaugh, and Ann Coulter to Baghdad on Flight 1.

Bring everyone else home now and then Laura could send the "Fab 4" care packages.

Fox could have a new show highlighting Laura's cooking abilities and the soldiers who are home could split up the profits, including Dumbya's lifetime pension benefits.

Sound like a plan gang ?

[ceekuei]

Iraq's large oil reserves is the prize coveted by the West, and America in particular. Oil is a strategic commodity and thousands have died for the benefit of the oil corporations. Everything you hear about bringing democracy to Iraq is incidental to the main objective, which is to control the reserves. In order to exercise control, the US must have a permanent military base in Iraq. Besides protecting the prize, there is also an attendant benefit to Israel, politically and militarily. No western nation wanted anything to do with the Jews during the intervening years of WW2. The British were fed up with them and America simply did not want them. Many Jews were "sent" to Shanghai, China where they prospered. Upon the founding of Israel as a nation state, many headed back to the "promised land." The only problem was that the "promised land" was carved out from Arab lands! Meanwhile the British and the Americans "created" Iraq without two hoots or understanding of the conflicts among the Sunnis, the Shiites, or the Kurds for that matter. Saddam came into power and overtime became the adopted child of the CIA. When Saddam decided to think for himself after helping the US in the Iran conflict, Uncle Sam was not happy and must do something about it. The rest is history. (This is a simplistic encapsulation of what it is. Uncle Sam is the devil as well as a God. Expediency dictates which side of the face he wants to show.)

[peacethinker-2009]

Bush and his minions got us into this mess with a pack of lies that most Americans including Dems in Congrees went along with. How sad and pathetic, maybe next time a President starts pounding his chest and grunting, folks will ask some serious questions and actually think about the possible consequences instead of just putting there lemming-cap on and lock-stepping along. Always always always QUESTION AUTHORITY. So now, what to do to clean up the terrible mess we've made. Likely the best thing to do is spend countless billions more and kill-maim many more people to try and make something at least partially decent out of it all. The whole thing is just a sad event that can't end soon enough.

[one_american]

SWSoE:

Too many Europeans, like American liberals, give their opinions, and little else.

Thanks for nothing.

[bushrocks1]

I love baiting liberal nutjobs... but sometimes it's just to easy...

[peacethinker-2009]

Jesus was a liberal. I bet if Jesus were here today, he wouldn't have much to do with the Bush bunch and their right-wing-hate-monger-brain-washed-un-christian-like followers.

[creeper00]

We're in a failed war, based on lies, to satisfy Bush's Freudian desire to outdo his father. Terrorists, who weren't in Iraq to begin with, now cause daily carnage. What part of "Get out" is so hard to understand?

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

[mjv2944]

First and foremost, war is profitable, if you don't believe me, ask all of Dubya's and Chaney's fat cat friends. No more American blood so that they look good to Wall Street. We are in there because of a lie, lets face the truth for once, and leave. Its a civil war and none of our business.

[peacethinker-2009]

Forget all the politics and religion ***. We're in Iraq for whatever reason, so what do we do now? Seems for every terrorist we kill, we create more, so it seems like there's no end, how can you win unless you go on a whole-sale killing spree and just get crazy and destroy everything. If we kill one and create two, ahh doesn't seem to work now does it.

[bob_burd]

I highly doubt the US is after Iraq's oil in particular. They just want the country to be able to continue its production. But the US has no foothold in any other oil-producing country in the middle east.

All middle eastern countries are threatened by muslim extremism, and if all those fanatics get together and turn their countries into muslim fundamentalist theocracies, the first thing they are going to do is turn off the taps and stop oil from coming here - in the name of Allah, of course.

Duh.....get it? The US desperately needs to keep the oil coming here, and that is the fault of oil-hungry consumers here, not because of some failed Bush policy.

When this happens, short-sighted liberal Americans will blame Bush, even if it's ten years from now. Because in their simplistic, provincial way of thinking, it's so convenient to blame him.

Blame yourself as you get into your gas-guzzling SUV or sports car. There are some things we can't point the finger at others for.

Selah

[peacethinker-2009]

The fact that we went into Iraq based on lies is well established. No reasonable and informed person could intelligently argue otherwise. I find it absurd that more Americans are not talking about impeaching Bush. Lets see Clinton almost got impeached for having a simple little affair with an adult woman that hurt nobody. Bush lies about something huge and has hurt thousands of people, good grief, how can there not be gigantic outrage at this?

[ceekuei]

laurieleemoo, surprise! I am half Jewish and I say it like it is and not what I like to think it is! If you bury your head in the sand, what you see (if you could see at all) is dirt and also have your hind exposed. Truth hurts, especially when the truth is not too flattering or complimentary. Our past makes us what we are today. Avoiding the realities of our past weakens our moral resolve. There are good people everywhere; Jews, Gentiles, and Muslims. Remember, your good can never be too good and our bad can never be too bad. I do not have any political affiliation. Bush is wrong, Israel has been wrong, the Muslims have been wrong. A wrong is a wrong. Truth does not have ethnicity.

[laurieleemoo]

Yes...I say we go in FULL FORCE and get the job done once and for all. Maybe the answer is actually to put MORE troops in. Maybe the american people and the democratic leaders cries for bringing the troops home have actually hindered us greatly....because maybe GW would have done that a long time ago.....except that politics with the american people and the democratic politicians constant cries for withdrawing and bringing troops home always probably just got in the way. Maybe we should just keep politics out of it and finally let the military tell us what we should do and listen to them.

[frankly6]

Bob_fird

We have a "foothold" in at least three other oil producing countries. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar.

And yes we are there for oil and the profits of a few well connected individuals and companies.

[frankly6]

laurieleemoo

Wow laurie have you abandoned your steadfast "stay the course" strategy. Big surprise. You seem to follow in lock-step with the marching orders of the GOP no matter what their selling.

Are you saying that Bush would have gotten the troops out already if the critics of the war had not gotten in his way? This is a feat of mental gymnastics even for you.

[peacethinker-2009]

All the military knows how to do is kill. If we intend to "win" this, we should turn the US soldiers loose and let them kill kill kill, just start bombing and shooting everything, let thiem have Sunday off for church though.

[frankly6]

ceekuei

Well said. There isn't one thing you stated that can't be varified by simple historical research.

[frankly6]

laurieleemoo

I don't think you even read ceekuei's post. Everything he said is a matter of public record and historical fact. Not opinion which is all you ever offer.

[frankly6]

lauriemooooo

Are you saying that Bush would have gotten the troops out already if the critics of the war had not gotten in his way? This is a feat of mental gymnastics even for you.

[frankly6]

lauriemooooo

What happened to stay the course? Are you flip floping again?

[laurieleemoo]

frankly6---#1...where did you get from what I said that I do not still believe we should stay the course? #2 If you think that you have proved CEEKUEI's point because YOU say everything he/she stated can be historically verified---does not make it fact. As a matter of fact---mostly of what CEEKUEI has said was an opinion---not fact. I just love how people make OPINIONS and then try to call them facts. That is just so very funny.

[frankly6]

lariemooooo

Do you ever have anything substantive or factual to convey or do you just come here to blow hot air?

[laurieleemoo]

frankly6----PLEASE TELL ME HOW I SAID ANYTHING AGAINST STAYING THE COURSE. I also just love how I state that we should put in more troops to get the job done and somehow what YOU HEAR---that I...what, don't think we should stay the course. You need to get the wax out of your brain---because nothing I said says that I do not want to stay the course. Typical Liberal!

[frankly6]

laurieemoooo

The FACT that you would call his statements opinion shows that you have no knowlege of the history of the region and so should aquire that knowlege before spouting your opinion here. If you care enough to have an opinion you should at least see that it's an informed one.

Can you say specifically which of his statements of historical fact you dispute? I doubt it seriously.

[laurieleemoo]

frankly6----Specifically....please, what exactly are you asking me.....if I how facts about what?

[pakaal]

The "go big" and "go home" options were rejected by the Pentagon group, the Post reported.
"The 'Go Long' approach is one that can work if there is sufficient strategic patience, resources appropriated and [if] leadership executes effectively."

So this is our leadership's idea of 'open to suggestions'? They eliminate the two new suggestions, and say "Go Long" (in other words the strategy we've been fed the last three years, a.k.a. "Stay the Course") might work. Ridiculous.

It's time to go home! Americans voted this in the elections, most of our military leaders say so, only the Bush administration and a few of their remaining hangers-on believe that we're on the right track.

[frankly6]

frankly6----PLEASE TELL ME HOW I SAID ANYTHING AGAINST STAYING THE COURSE.


Staying the course as it has been defined by the Bush administration thus far is to maintain current troop levels until the Iraqis stand up and then ratchet levels down. Now your saying we should INCREASE TROOP LEVELS which is an admission that we didn't send enough to do the job in the first place and is a flip flop from your earlier possition.

[oddjob123]

Well See there is 2 versions of victory in iraq

We won the war beacuse the job of a military is too kill and desstroy we alrdy did that, troops where trained to fight, not to partake in nation building or restoring infatructure, we are supposed to be in this war for amercia not for iraq.

The political victory what the politicians want is too rebuild iraq and have it a democracy and so it could be a power base for us.

What is sad is that in alsmost in every insugeoncy we have fought against we have trained the insugeons ourselfves. For example the afgain war against the ruassians we trained the taliban to fight the russians now they are using they same tactics we taught them against us,And look now we are traing hunderds of thousands of iraqi soldiers i think we will see them in the future.

[frankly6]

lauriemooo?

[peacethinker-2009]

Seriously though, what do we do to finish this war and get out and stop wasting billions of dollars that need spent on many domestic things.

[laurieleemoo]

Frankly6----Boy you have really gotten good with putting that liberal spin on things. Please stop putting words in my mouth to make them fit your argument, okay? I said put more troops in period. That is not to say that we did not have enough troops in there to begin with. That is to say that things are always changing on the ground--have from the start---and yes...now is the time to put more troops in. And so what if I were to say there were not enough troops in there to begin with---HOW AGAIN does that mean that I don't think we should stay the course. You really are reaching here---admit it you liberal spin man

[laurieleemoo]

frankly---I stated what I would like proof on from CEEKEUI's post....now frankly6----give me the proof I asked for! Or shut up already!

[frankly6]

lauriemoooo

That is not to say that we did not have enough troops in there to begin with. That is to say that things are always changing on the ground--have from the start---and yes...now is the time to put more troops in.


What has CHANGED that has made this the time to send in more troops when it wasn't a good idea before?

[ceekuei]

laurieleemoo! Could we be related? I have Irish stock and some. Sure, whatever I write is history. In order to understand what we are today and where we are going tomorrow we need to know our yesterday. Back to my opinion. Bush is lost. His Iraq policy is reactive not pro-active because his administration does not know what to do. He hopes for the best and continues to experiment with one policy after another and counting the days when he leaves office and all the mess he creates behind. Staying to "finish the job" is a declaration not a strategy. It is a slogan much like selling a product. Sectarian violence will continue long after Uncle Sam has left. The invasion of Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq is a lost course, a fool's errand. The place is now a cess pool for the worst kind of terrorist to breed. Thanks to Bush's vision of illusionary grandeur. By the time this nincompoop leaves office, it is not inconceivable that 4000 American soldiers and thousands more Iraqis would have died, and for what? The irony is that if the major Middle Eastern countries have nukes besides Israel,the prospect of mutual annihilation might bring common sense to the table. A controversial thought at best.

[ceekuei]

laurieleemoo! Could we be related? I have Irish stock and some. Sure, whatever I write is history. In order to understand what we are today and where we are going tomorrow we need to know our yesterday. Back to my opinion. Bush is lost. His Iraq policy is reactive not pro-active because his administration does not know what to do. He hopes for the best and continues to experiment with one policy after another and counting the days when he leaves office and all the mess he creates behind. Staying to "finish the job" is a declaration not a strategy. It is a slogan much like selling a product. Sectarian violence will continue long after Uncle Sam has left. The invasion of Iraq and bringing democracy to Iraq is a lost course, a fool's errand. The place is now a cess pool for the worst kind of terrorist to breed. Thanks to Bush's vision of illusionary grandeur. By the time this nincompoop leaves office, it is not inconceivable that 4000 American soldiers and thousands more Iraqis would have died, and for what? The irony is that if the major Middle Eastern countries have nukes besides Israel,the prospect of mutual annihilation might bring common sense to the table. A controversial thought at best.