The Coffeespy

The Washington Post continues to talk about Bush versus “the generals” when it comes to a troop surge.  In an Early Birded story from the WaPo:

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq.

Ever notice no one goes on record?  Pfft.  Anyway, how does that jive with an earlier WaPo story I commented on?  Let’s take a look:

The uniformed leadership has opposed sending additional forces without a clear mission, seeing the idea as ill-formed and driven by a desire in the White House to do something different even without a defined purpose.

Oh, well that earlier story sounds a lot different.  With the President set to clearly state some goals (please, Lord, state some clear goals) it looks like a troop surge isn’t opposed at all.

Another bit from the story today:

Maliki’s idea was to lower the U.S. profile, not raise it. “The message in Amman was that he wanted to take the lead and put an Iraqi face on it. He wanted to control his own forces,” said a U.S. official familiar with the visit.

Again… someone off the record.  A U.S. official familiar with the visit could be anything.  In fact, it could be someone who never even left the States.  Why the mysticism in WaPo sourcing at every turn?

A little more:

Although the president was publicly polite, few of the key Baker-Hamilton recommendations appealed to the administration, which intensified its own deliberations over a new “way forward” in Iraq. How to look distinctive from the study group became a recurring theme.

Is there anything to support this?  While I’m sure there might be some absolute idiots who’d believe the administration sat down around a table and said, “how can we look different than them,” the assertion is rather ludicrous.  It’s especially ludicrous without even the shady, unnamed sourcing WaPo tends to use.  Sounds like a reporter just saying what’s on their mind, in fact.

And buried in the last paragraphs of the story:

The Joint Chiefs came to accept Bush’s wishes, especially after new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates traveled to Iraq last month with the Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, said a U.S. official familiar with the trip. Gates met with Maliki, who laid out more details about the Iraqi plan for Baghdad.

“That gave them enough to define a mission and its objectives,” the official said. “They came back satisfied.”

Now go back to the top and read what WaPo started off with…

• The Captain’s Quarters reminds us that the so-called “surge” strategy has a little more to it than just additional troops.  Reading the paper you might have missed the whole targets, goals, economics, poverty-reduction thing…
• The Left Coaster takes a different tack: 20,000 isn’t enough to accomplish anything.  The argument has merit (if by anything you mean everything) and is worth thinking on.