Escalation II

I had read this story yesterday, but just gave it passing notice. The Pentagon is always making plans, so who knows. But William Arkin makes an interesting case for why Bush will add yet more troops to Iraq:

Here's how it could happen: In September, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker produce their "report" to Congress. President Bush then ponders the options. (And we know he isn't going to throw in the towel.) And then the case is made -- and there is a certain logic to it -- that keeping forces at the same or higher levels would help the U.S. and Iraq reach their goals more quickly.

So one option then would be Surge II. These guys have guts.

On his Baghdad-bound aircraft yesterday, Gen. Peter Pace said that the Joint Chiefs (the chairman, vice chairman, and the chiefs of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force) are developing their own assessment of the situation in Iraq, a report that they will present to the president in September alongside the report from Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq.

Joint Chiefs deliberations are closely held. Pace said, however, that they would look at post-September scenarios for Iraq that included a second surge of U.S. military forces -- if that is what the president wants. Pace also echoed the view that the first surge (which started in January) is just beginning to bear fruit and in fact needs a boost to allow for Iraqi political and military progress.

I think he lays out a very possible scenario. I hope he's wrong. Arkin reports that generals in the Pentagon are fed up with Iraq while those in Iraq have swallowed the kool-aid all the way. Interestingly, soldiers are starting to get more brazen in their criticisms of their deployment in a no-win situation as evidenced by an ABC News report last night. These guys sounded just like Vietnam soldiers. As usual, we shall see.