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."

[rkb4762]

THIS WHOLE WAR MAKES US LOOK WEAK AND SORRY,
WE PARADE OUR SOLDIERS ON TV FOR ALLEGED WRONG DOING, AND IN THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM, A SOLDIER IS PRESSURED TO PLEAD GUILTY FOR A LIGHTER SENTENCE WITH THE THREAT THAT IF THEY PLEAD NOT GUILTY, THE OUTCOME WILL BE HARSH BECAUSE THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST THEM. THE GOVERNMENT IS ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THEY LOOK ON CNN, AND FOX. THE ENTIER WORLD IS LAUGHING AT US AND THE ENAMY IS USING IT AGAINST US. WHEN WILL THIS IMPATENT GOVERNMENT LEARN.

[rkb4762]

This country has lost one important thing, it is on a campign to rid GOD, prayer or anything that gives us a moral concience above our own wicked laws. We are fighting people who have been fighting each other when America was just one big forrest, yet they worship GOD, even if there way is a based on a screwed up (kill non-muslims, blow yourself up to kill the infidels)docrine.
This mess cannot be fixed, but the American Soldier should not have to pay the price for this countrys selfish, dumb, hardheaded leadership. "SOLUTION" boost the military presence to 250,000, go on a masive brutal clean-up campaign, to take out the insurgance with hard unrelenting force, and allow the soldiers to fight the enamy unrestraigned. This might not solve the whole problem, but it will put us in a position to give that lame Government a chance, and us a chance to leave with some dignity.

[aeuropean]

Instead of "GOing BIG,"GOing LONG" or "GOing HOME" -"GO INTERNATIONAL"(example Afghanistan).
Convince the Europeans (NATO) to fight the "Terrorism" in Iraq.(Because the US ousted Saddam-a former ally in the Iraq-Iran war,another former ally from the Afghanistan-Russian war,Osama Bin Laden was able to set foot into Iraq.)
Of course,first the "yellow-belly" Germans have to be persuaded to give up patrolling save North-Afghanistan areas ,building schools and hospitals and instead learn again to kill women and children in order to get to their renegade "terrorist" fathers.
The US can then reduce their troops to a level sufficient to guard their newly-build bases and the precious oilfields they went in for in the first place.
Good Luck

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[zoot8]

There needs to be a change in tactics. The series of attack and retreat operations does not provide security. They should establish defensible spaces around a school or hospital or power plant with protectable perimeters and outlying sentries to prevent rocket and mortar attacks. Everyone inside the perimeter should be vouched for by someone trusted. In effect there should be multiple "Green Zones" with mutual aid and surge capacity to protect each other and the logistical supply routes. Iraquis can be trained to protect a well designed perimeter and maintain security from infiltration within the perimeter. It is not surprising that the Iraquis will not stand up because they are too vulnerable. American troops can build the infrastructure for defensible spaces that the Iraquis can defend. After they have established security, then they can go after the pockets of insurgency. This is a medieval castle tactic, but that may be what is called for in areas that are completely chaotic. There will be no progress without security.

[firststate]

radiob
the Stuarts notwithstanding, I was curious about the past life part. You're right, a little printed noise isn't always a bad thing. You are also right about taking anybody seriously who says the same thing even when it is irrelevant, oh that Bush, not bushrocks1. Are they are one and the same???

[radiob-2009]

Here is a link on Jacobites,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism#Political_background
Read and judge for yourself.As far as Bushrocks is concerned he is harmless and really never adds anything to the posts.Let him ramble,no one can take an individual serious who constantly paste the same post over and over with no relevance to the story.

[pakaal]

McCain may believe a 20,000 troop increase would make the difference, but most Iraqis disagree. A new report says more than 75% of both Shiites and Sunnis want us to leave Iraq within a year, expressing their belief that the US military presence provokes more violence than it prevents, and that day-to-day security would improve if the US left Iraq.

Also bear in mind that 6 in 10 Americans back withdrawal within a year. They want us out, they think we're now doing more harm than good, and the majority of us here in the US agree. So, what's the holdup?

[firststate]

bushrocks1, your single-mindedness reminds me of someone who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. He also stays on message, no matter what the question, comment or situation. Could you be the same?

[firststate]

bluestardad
You are so very right and it's a @^%#*&^%* shame. Remember when more of our leaders were competent? Some will say they were more corrupt, but if so, at least they were competent. The new plans are designed to be sequential. They are: 1. Stay; 2. The; 3. Course! Hopefully we won't recognize any similarity to previous non-plans.

Our leaders should be required to visit

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

and click on each picture. One can't help noticing the number of men and women lost in the slightly over 3 1/2 years, almost 1,300 days, since our fearless leader said "mission accomplished."

[kwch]

But gunner, that snake has 100 heads (1000 now because of Bush) and they are scattered throughout the world now, not just in the middle east.

You are never going to get or find all the heads. The best thing to do is to get the snake itself to live peacefully with you.

[frankly6]

Here's one from HOW TO BE A GOOD REPUBLICAN:

11) You have to believe that the best way to encourage military morale is praise the troops overseas while cutting their VA benefits.

[bluestardad]

These military and civilian planners are a bunch of Chimps. They sure as ever had no plan going in so now we are suppose to believe they have three plans with more credibility than before to choose from?

[frankly6]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Hell no that's for poor kids to do. I do love the blood and destruction though. As long as it's someone elses son or daughter. So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed, they either have much bigger balls than me or they are desperately poor and trying to make a better life for themselves. Either way, who cares? An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East has proven to be very profitable for a handfull of connected individuals and companies. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, and I really like resoluteness. They may not succeed, some say because they are arrogant and criminaly incompetent. But I say it's because we have so many traitors on the home front calling for some kind of acountability from the administration. The nerve of these peasants speaking truth to power! Who do they think they are? Thay should just shut up and send their money and children into the fight. These traitors have apparently occupied the high ground for now. But not for long..we'll find a way to blame the failures in Iraq on them.

[firststate]

bushrocks1,
What color is the sky in your world? Are you allowed to think or only paste? This waiting you're doing, is it for the mother ship to come for you? Can anyone guess the response?

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to WW II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. As a hypothetical, I can say, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country who can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front, being a big one. But now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?... I'm waiting.

[frankly6]

bushrocks1

I see you can cut and paste again and again. Can you argue your point? Can you speak your own thoughts?

[gunnerv1]

I don't care about Democracy there, it'll never happen because the powers to be in the Middle East don't want it. What I do want is to wipe out Extreamist Islam and you can't do that without cutting off the head of the snake where it lives!

[gunnerv1]

We have to cut the head off of the snake or it will just keep coming. Just wait until something happens here. Can anyone say Internment camps? I'll be the first to volunteer as a guard!

[kwch]

Gunner I don't care if we win this war in Iraq and install a democracy there, they will still be coming for us. You can thank GW for this as he has trashed our reputation in the world and created thousands upon thousands of new enemies for us to deal with.

He claims that since we have not had another 9/11 that we are safer now. Anyone who believes that statement is a pure moron!