I wrote recently that a moderate increase in Coalition troops in Iraq not only wouldn’t help, but would likely hinder our mission. It seems that Central Command commander General Abizaid agrees. In response to Senator McCain’s continued – and inexplicable – insistence that 20,000 more soldiers (less than 15% more than the current number) will make the difference between success and failure, Gen. Abizaid said,
I met with every divisional commander, General Casey . . . General Dempsey . . . And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add consiberably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no.This response indicates either a shift in administration goals or a difference between administration and military aims. His answer seems to demonstrate that the primary U.S. goal is to hand over Iraq to Iraqis, rather than the loftier (and less likely) aims of establishing basic security or creating a functional democracy. I personally think that handing over Iraq to Iraqis is likely to further those goals indirectly, but until now, that hasn’t been the stated mission of the U.S.
So do military leaders have different goals than their civilian overseers, or has the President changed the mission without telling anybody? Again, I’m in favor of making a handover the primary goal, but I’d also like to know who made that decision, if it will hold, and how we’re trying to accomplish it.
