February 11, 2009 5:37 PM

The Skinny: More U.S. Troops To Iraq?

By
Dan Collins
(CBS)  The Skinny is Hillary Profita's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.



'Double Down' On Iraq?

And now, a card game analogy for Iraq, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, which reports that "strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to 'double down' in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government."

That decision "would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group," notes the Times, not to mention how much it will irk those who are increasingly gunning for the U.S. to leave Iraq.

Nonetheless, "a defense official" told the Times: "I think it is worth trying. But you can't have the rhetoric without the resources. This is a double down." And yes, the Times points out, the proposal "would be a gamble."

Bush Delays Release Of Iraq Plan

While originally President Bush was going to present a plan for Iraq to the public before Christmas, internal debates among advisers led the White House to determine that Bush would delay such an announcement until early next year. The issues being debated include whether to send more troops to Iraq for a short period, how to pressure Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki to provide basic services and quell violence and "whether to back a Shiite government in the conflict with the Sunnis, or to seek a new strategy for national reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite factions," says the New York Times front page. Such a reconciliation plan would seek to expand Maliki's reach, while undermining that of Shiite cleric Moktada al Sadr.

Get Out of Baghdad?

In another front page Iraq story, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser told the Times that he thinks it is "extremely important" that the U.S. military reduce its presence in Baghdad.

As such, Iraq "has presented the United States with a plan that calls for Iraqi troops to assume primary responsibility for security in Baghdad early next year," writes the Times.

While that poses some obvious advantages for the U.S. – especially considering continuous poll results like these -- it also presents some significant risks. For example, that "the Americans do not want to become complicit in sectarian violence," writes the Times.

The demands upon troops in Iraq and Afghanistan "have sharply decreased the readiness of Army and Marine Corps units rotating back to the United States, compromising the ability of U.S. ground forces to respond to other potential conflicts around the world."

That has motivated the Army and Marine Corps to plan on requesting "permanent increases in personnel" from incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, writes the Washington Post's front page. That also means that the Army will "press hard for 'full access'" to the National Guard and the Reserves – requesting that by asking Gates "to take the politically sensitive step of easing the Pentagon restrictions on the frequency and duration of involuntary call-ups for reservists," writes the Post. That should make him a popular new guy.

Feds Give Thumbs Up To Faux Crab Meat

Now, for the good news. On a completely unrelated subject. And I guess it's really only good news for the seafood industry. "After a dozen years of lobbying," the industry has gotten permission from the FDA to stop calling imitation crab meat, well, imitation crab meat, writes the Wall Street Journal.

The product will probably be referred to as "Crab-flavored seafood, made with surimi, a fully cooked fish protein." All the best to the advertising firm who wins that account. Although, in order to fit the entire statement on product packages "companies may end up using large type for 'crab-flavored seafood' and much smaller type for the rest."

"Hopefully, people who were turned off by the word 'imitation' will take another look and give it a try," one seafood company spokesman told the Journal.

On The Web: The Dangers of Wi-Fi

In today's edition of Things You Didn't Know That Could Kill You: Wireless Internet. It's a regular rhetorical photo finish between those who argue there are some serious health hazards associated with Wi-Fi ("Sufferers report headaches, nausea, stomach upsets, tinnitus, brain fog and short-term memory among the symptoms"), and those who think that's basically a load of hooey, Wired reports.

"Riding in on peer-reviewed research, but flunking every major test, the idea that wireless technology amounts to a modern health threat presents a conundrum to proponents and skeptics alike," says the magazine.

One electromagnetic field sensitivity advocate (that's what the estimated 1-3 percent of the Wi-Fi-illness-sensitive population is called) is none too pleased with the kinds of dismissive reactions he's received from some in the academic community about the potential damange that wi-fi can reap: "A professor called it Compulsive Risk Assessment Psychosis, otherwise known as CRAP."

One engineering professor essentially agrees: "The fields that are induced by Wi-Fi transmissions are well below those that could cause problems to humans," said Chris Guy, head of The University of Reading's School of Systems Engineering. "The maximum power that is allowed to be transmitted by any Wi-Fi unit is one-tenth of a watt."

"What isn't yet agreed upon is whether or not it is attributable to the electrical devices being accused of being the problem, or whether it is psychological," said Graham Philips of an organization that "seeks to highlight the alleged dangers of EMF."

Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment
by mh4cbs1 December 15, 2006 12:38 AM EST
Bush will NEVER "leave Iraq" without the Oil, a friendly dictator or "democracy" (whatever) in place to make sure we have access to the Oil, and permanent US bases. You think he cares about the death and destruction he has caused? Its just "collateral damage" on the way to the NeoCOn New World Order.

This latest flurry is just PR, pre State of the Union *** so he can get up in January and say he listened to all the sage advice and guess what, we are staying the course (but there will be a new catch phrase to fake out the American people again)... just you wait n see

By the way, did you see Kissinger on Charlie Rose? The War Criminal whose last success was Vietnam. Says that even if we leave Iraq we will have to be return at some point, to protect "American interests" (the Oil, DUH!). It never ends...

Want peace? Jail Bush, Cheney, and the whole NeoCon gang. Then tell Dems to grow a spine or vote them out. Most spineless Dems are just as complicit as Bush in this Fiasco. Lets see if they vote Bush the WAR money.


Reply to this comment
by December 14, 2006 1:58 PM EST
Bush feels it is best to wait until after Christmas to tell more families that one or both of their loved ones will be deployed to Iraq, no sense in spoiling christmas for them, trust me this is his plan
Reply to this comment
by grazinggoat December 14, 2006 2:17 AM EST
Bush is spitting at the face of America and he's to send more troops to Iraq. No matter what you guys say. He has a MENTAL-devine mission. He reads the bible and missions from Torah. He actually has no other choice.

Hint to Bush 20,000 is not enough. You should think of 200,000. This mental-ill will have devided a country that was standing as one nation before the invasion of his crying-pu$$y father. Sadr City man (Moktada) is to side with insurgents. Saudis don't like much this division and for sure they will send expertise and money to Sunnis. They cannot tolerate, so close, a shiite nation that Iraq is becoming. Would there be a revival of a weakened Saddam in the near future?
Ooo Crystal Ball, Ooooh Crystal Ball
Reply to this comment
by scotgwhiz December 13, 2006 10:52 PM EST
One thing is for certain, Bush will make the worst choice possible and more lives will be squandered for nothing. The worst president ever will continue his long series of inept decisions based on Corporate or ideological interests. If he ignores the American public's desire for a change in policy Congress should either cut off funding or proceed with impeachment cases against him and Cheney.
Reply to this comment
by stevenga777 December 13, 2006 7:18 PM EST
"Some of you may die, but that's a risk I'm willing to make." King Farqua in the movie Shrek.

IMPEACH BUSH
Reply to this comment
by drinuk December 13, 2006 5:47 PM EST
Trickle down spin, Bush will say nothing until after Christmas, but his tribe of cretins will leak it all over the place prior to his final "Decision" By the time he tells us he is sending a further 20,000 extra men and women out there, we will have gotten used to the idea.

He is one big gambler, a high roller with someone else's chips.
Reply to this comment
by clestes-2009 December 13, 2006 4:41 PM EST
He might be tempted, but there will be a big hue and cry and he may wish he had not.
Reply to this comment
by sharncedar December 13, 2006 3:39 PM EST
Hah, this will be very tempting to Bush. I'm not sure how he can resist this plan -to his mind, a chance to wim in Iraq, vindicate himself. The cost is paid by others, our dead, our money. Why not gamble with the lives of others?

This is my current bet on sleazo bush's big "decision" about Iraq.
Reply to this comment
by bluestardad December 13, 2006 1:39 PM EST
If Bush does this America will put him in Jail!
Reply to this comment
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook