Soldiers Don't Want It, Civilian Leadership Doesn't Want It

The President is meeting with his War Cabinet today to figure out how best to sell the strategy of escalation in Iraq. Last week, the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, traveled to Iraq to "meet with the troops," and CNN made a big deal of the fact that this "random sample" of troops seemed to support a buildup of forces. Yeah, completely random sample of troops who just so happen to share a meal with the Secretary of Defense. Yeah, that's how this White House works.

As it turns out, an actual random sample of the troops tields results more along the lines of "that's a hell of a bad idea":

Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say the temporary surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea [...]

In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.

Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.

But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.

Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.

"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colo. "What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."

"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."

Pfc. Richard Grieco said it's hard to see how daily missions in Baghdad make a difference.

"If there's a plan to sweep through Baghdad and clear it, (more troops) could make a difference," said the 19-year-old from Slidell, La. "But if we just dump troops in here like we've been doing, it's just going to make for more targets."

Sgt. James Simons, 24, of Tacoma, Wash., said Baghdad is so dangerous that U.S. forces spend much of their time in combat instead of training Iraqis.

"Baghdad is still like it was at the start of the war. We still have to knock out insurgents because things are too dangerous for us to train the Iraqis," he said.

Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.

A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."

There were a few scattered calls for escalation, but the majority were against it. Public opinion among those in Iraq seems to reflect public opinion here at home. And the Secretary of Defense, recipient of all of those good wishes and calls for more troops just a week ago, doesn't seem to agree anymore:

With President Bush leaning toward sending more soldiers to pacify Iraq, his defense secretary is privately opposing the buildup.

According to two administration officials who asked not to be named, Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in Iraq on his first day on the job, December 18, at a Pentagon meeting with civilians who oversee the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines.

The view of the new defense secretary appears to be at odds with the leanings of Mr. Bush, who is expected to announce a new troop surge when he unveils his new war strategy next month. Mr. Gates met with Mr. Bush Saturday at Camp David after a trip to Iraq, where the defense secretary met with the commander of American forces there, General George Casey.

Remember, Gates was actually part of the Iraq Study Group before leaving to become SecDef. He's been following the proceedings on the ground and he's not convinced that mediating a civil war would be the ideal strategy. In fact anyone who believes that escalating the war is a good idea is the kind of person who thinks the military can solve anything, and in this case, it can't. It can't stop Sunnis and Shia from killing each other.

The White House is trying to pre-empt growing concern over the imminent decision, by asking critics to "wait to hear what the President has to say before announcing what (they're) opposed to." This would be exactly the wrong thing to do, if you care about the well-being of men and women in uniform. It was thrilling to see John Edwards reference the McCain Doctrine of escalation in Iraq. This policy ought to be both radioactive, and connected to the man who most supports it (more even than the President), so that when it's announced there is outrage directed right at the primary sources. Republicans know that the status quo, or worse, increases in troops and casualties in Iraq, will be political suicide in 2008. They're going to start distancing themselves from the policy as well. And then the 2008 GOP frontrunner will go down along with his President.

This policy will be forced upon the American people unless it becomes too hot to the touch. Biden and Edwards are beginning to put the heat on. The President has no pain receptors when it comes to public opinion, so it may mean nothing. Except for the continued slide into irrelevance for the Republican Party.