White House: No Rift With Joint Chiefs
The White House acknowledged Tuesday that it's considering a temporary "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq, but denied a split with the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the idea.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said a short-term boost in troop strength is among a number of ideas President Bush is looking at. But he described as "totally inaccurate" a Washington Post report that the Chiefs are unanimously opposed to the plan in the face of "aggressive" support from White House officials.
Snow emphasized that no decisions have been made about changing U.S. policy in Iraq.
"There's an assumption that people have been given marching orders, and at this point, the president is asking folks to take a look at a number of things," Snow said.
"I think people are trying to create a fight between the president and the Joint Chiefs when one does not exist," Snow said at a White House briefing. He would not disclose if Mr. Bush was leaning one way or the other about increasing troops in Iraq or a new direction in U.S. policy. According to some accounts, the White House is pushing the idea of a surge in troops and the Joint Chiefs oppose it.
The White House has said Mr. Bush will announce his decisions in January.
Asked again about whether there were conflicting opinions between the White House and the Joint Chiefs on how to proceed, Snow said: "What I'm saying is this budding narrative of the president locking horns with the joint chiefs is totally inaccurate."
Incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton says a surge of fresh U.S. forces into Iraq wouldn't change a thing.
"What's their mission? What is the military mission if you send 20,000 more troops into Baghdad? I don't know," said Skelton. "Would it exacerbate the problem by providing more targets?"
The Missouri Democrat said the armed forces are already "stretched and strained."
Meanwhile, Robert Gates, the new defense secretary, wasted no time on Monday spelling out the stakes he sees in Iraq.
In his first public remarks as Pentagon chief, Gates warned that failure in Iraq would be a "calamity" that would haunt the United States for years. He said he would go there soon to consult with commanders.
Underscoring eroding security in Iraq, a Pentagon report — issued just hours after Gates was sworn in as the 22nd Secretary of Defense — said the number of insurgent and sectarian attacks had risen to the highest level in years. It said civil war remains a possibility and urged the Iraqi government to act with urgency to prevent collapse.
Gates sketched out an agenda of reversing the downward spiral in Iraq, attending to resurgent violence in Afghanistan and pushing for the military modernization that was a priority of his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Iraq, he said, comes first.
"All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again," Gates told a few hundred people in a Pentagon auditorium, including Mr. Bush, Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gates' wife and mother. Rumsfeld, who handed off his authority earlier Monday in a private event, did not attend.
"As the president has made clear," Gates said, "we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come."
Gates has not tipped his hand on the kinds of changes in Iraq strategy he thinks may be needed. He said that since his Senate confirmation in early December he has held in-depth discussions with Mr. Bush on Iraq policy.
More broadly, Gates has said he will keep an open mind about other issues at the Pentagon, including proposals by the heads of the Army and Marine Corps to increase the size of their services to cope with the strains of war. Last week, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's top commander, warned that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.
At the Pentagon ceremony, the president said he is confident Gates, 63, will bring a fresh perspective to the Iraq problem.
Mr. Bush made no mention of his plan for changing Iraq strategy, which he has said will be unveiled next month.
U.S. commanders moved several thousand more U.S. troops into Baghdad last summer in a bid to tamp down the violence. The move worked briefly, but the violence rebounded quickly, according to the Pentagon report sent to Congress on Monday.
The Pentagon report said attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians jumped sharply in recent months to the highest level since Iraq regained its sovereignty in June 2004. From mid-August to mid-November, the weekly average number of attacks increased 22 percent from the previous three months. The worst violence was in Baghdad and in the western province of Anbar, long the focus of activity by Sunni insurgents, the report said.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said a short-term boost in troop strength is among a number of ideas President Bush is looking at. But he described as "totally inaccurate" a Washington Post report that the Chiefs are unanimously opposed to the plan in the face of "aggressive" support from White House officials.
Snow emphasized that no decisions have been made about changing U.S. policy in Iraq.
"There's an assumption that people have been given marching orders, and at this point, the president is asking folks to take a look at a number of things," Snow said.
"I think people are trying to create a fight between the president and the Joint Chiefs when one does not exist," Snow said at a White House briefing. He would not disclose if Mr. Bush was leaning one way or the other about increasing troops in Iraq or a new direction in U.S. policy. According to some accounts, the White House is pushing the idea of a surge in troops and the Joint Chiefs oppose it.
The White House has said Mr. Bush will announce his decisions in January.
Asked again about whether there were conflicting opinions between the White House and the Joint Chiefs on how to proceed, Snow said: "What I'm saying is this budding narrative of the president locking horns with the joint chiefs is totally inaccurate."
Incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton says a surge of fresh U.S. forces into Iraq wouldn't change a thing.
"What's their mission? What is the military mission if you send 20,000 more troops into Baghdad? I don't know," said Skelton. "Would it exacerbate the problem by providing more targets?"
The Missouri Democrat said the armed forces are already "stretched and strained."
Meanwhile, Robert Gates, the new defense secretary, wasted no time on Monday spelling out the stakes he sees in Iraq.
In his first public remarks as Pentagon chief, Gates warned that failure in Iraq would be a "calamity" that would haunt the United States for years. He said he would go there soon to consult with commanders.
Underscoring eroding security in Iraq, a Pentagon report — issued just hours after Gates was sworn in as the 22nd Secretary of Defense — said the number of insurgent and sectarian attacks had risen to the highest level in years. It said civil war remains a possibility and urged the Iraqi government to act with urgency to prevent collapse.
Gates sketched out an agenda of reversing the downward spiral in Iraq, attending to resurgent violence in Afghanistan and pushing for the military modernization that was a priority of his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Iraq, he said, comes first.
"All of us want to find a way to bring America's sons and daughters home again," Gates told a few hundred people in a Pentagon auditorium, including Mr. Bush, Cabinet secretaries, members of Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Gates' wife and mother. Rumsfeld, who handed off his authority earlier Monday in a private event, did not attend.
"As the president has made clear," Gates said, "we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come."
Gates has not tipped his hand on the kinds of changes in Iraq strategy he thinks may be needed. He said that since his Senate confirmation in early December he has held in-depth discussions with Mr. Bush on Iraq policy.
More broadly, Gates has said he will keep an open mind about other issues at the Pentagon, including proposals by the heads of the Army and Marine Corps to increase the size of their services to cope with the strains of war. Last week, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's top commander, warned that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.
At the Pentagon ceremony, the president said he is confident Gates, 63, will bring a fresh perspective to the Iraq problem.
Mr. Bush made no mention of his plan for changing Iraq strategy, which he has said will be unveiled next month.
U.S. commanders moved several thousand more U.S. troops into Baghdad last summer in a bid to tamp down the violence. The move worked briefly, but the violence rebounded quickly, according to the Pentagon report sent to Congress on Monday.
The Pentagon report said attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops and Iraqi civilians jumped sharply in recent months to the highest level since Iraq regained its sovereignty in June 2004. From mid-August to mid-November, the weekly average number of attacks increased 22 percent from the previous three months. The worst violence was in Baghdad and in the western province of Anbar, long the focus of activity by Sunni insurgents, the report said.
Popular in Politics
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Immigration bill would require fingerprinting at 30 airports
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 684 Comments
- Both parties vow to "get to the bottom" of IRS scandal 277 Comments
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 470 Comments
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 211 Comments
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
Please join West Point graduate Lt. Watada and say "NO - I will not return to Iraq to fight an illegal war".
Your oath is to the constitution, not to a President who has abused his office and LIED us into an Invasion of a country that was NOT a threat.
You can legally and safely speak your mind, which is the patriotic duty of every American citizen. To learn more about how active duty personnel can (safely) petition congress to end this needless, horrific War, just go to the link below:
http://www.appealforredress.or
g
Thank you for your service to our country. Please stay home. Bush/Cheney and the NeoCons view the death of our soldiers as just a political headache -- other than that they could care less.
If these NeoCons were men of peace, men who believed in war as a Last Resort (not a First Choice), then you would not have been pulled from Afghanistan and sent into Iraq. Osama would not be free. We would not have nearly 3,000 troops killed in action. A few hundred thousand Iraqis would not be dead. We would have $350 Billion to spend on schools instead of wasting it on War.
Bush/Cheney will NEVER leave Iraq without a friendly puppet regime that will give US permanent bases, permanent control of their Oil, and permanent funding for the war profiteers (the Haliburtons of corporate America).
Join Lt. Watada. Serve your country best by REFUSING to fight for NeoCon Imperialism!
(By the way, the above Bush quotation is available on a bumper sticker at http://www.progressiveportal.org/resources/stickers.html .)
It's time to REVOLT.
Trying again, the military's leadership learned under rummy to accept the Sec Def's version of their advice in public, anyway. Those with stones enough to stand up to, and disagree with him, much less the petulant-in-chief are gone. Given the benefit of the doubt, the current military "yes men" may believe that they'll make changes quietly from within. In nearly six years of the current junta, it's not working.
Gates is suspect because numbnuts-in-chief picked him. Gates' integrity has been questioned but in this administration integrity is a liability. From the sociopath at the top all the way down the administration is a best truth-challenged, in the vernacular they're lying Bas tards.
The final cost of the war is projected to be around $2 Trillion "Pre-surge" cost is $8 Billion/month, $185,185/minute, $3,000/second. In the time needed to read this the amount spent would put a kid through college. There is also the most recent 3 mo average 86 soldiers/month killed and countless injuries, but niether cost matters to giJoe-in-chief as he stalls announcing changes for a month. The goal, a long term US mil presence is closer with each day of chaos. That's been the goal since reagan sent rummy to kiss up to saddam and aziz 23 yrs ago. Dumbya can say he got that military presence for the forseeable future, reagan couldn't do that. Reagan ignored a little chemical warfare, bush ignores a few (3,000) US lives.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- A new Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) study reveals that 2.2 million American households will lose their homes and as much as $164 billion due to foreclosures in the subprime mortgage market. Titled, "Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and Their Cost to Homeowners," the CRL study is the first comprehensive, nationwide review of millions of subprime mortgages originated from 1998 through the third quarter of 2006
Gates is suspect because numbnuts-in-chief picked him. Gates%u2019 integrity has been questioned but in this administration integrity is a liability. From the sociopath at the top all the way down the administration is a best truth-challenged, in the vernacular they%u2019re lying Bas tards.
The final cost of the war is projected to be around $2 Trillion "Pre-surge" cost is $8 Billion/month, $185,185/minute, $3,000/second. In the time needed to read this the amount spent would put a kid through college. There is also the most recent 3 mo average 86 soldier%u2019s/month killed and countless injuries, but niether cost matters to giJoe-in-chief as he stalls announcing changes for a month. The goal, a long term US mil presence is closer with each day of chaos. That%u2019s been the goal since reagan sent rummy to kiss up to saddam and aziz 23 yrs ago. Dumbya can say he got that military presence for the forseeable future, reagan couldn%u2019t do that. Reagan ignored a little chemical warfare, bush ignores a few (3,000) US lives.