SINCE IT'S MERE TOKENISM, WHY NOT SEND JUST ONE?:

Bush considers smaller increase in troops than expected (Warren P. Strobel and Nancy A. Youssef, 1/04/07, McClatchy Newspapers)

President Bush plans to order extra U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new push to secure Baghdad but in smaller numbers than previously reported, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

The president, who is completing a lengthy review of Iraq policy, is considering dispatching three to four U.S. combat brigades to Iraq, or no more than 15,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops, the officials said.

As with all men, his strength -- stubbornness -- is his weakness. He's just sending more because he'd said he would, not because they'll serve any useful purpose.

MORE:
And -- surprise! -- the President has once again smacked down the neocons, Old guard back on Iraq policy: An influential faction of neoconservatives is behind Bush's expected call for more troops. (Peter Spiegel, January 4, 2007, LA Times)

[A] small but increasingly influential group of neocons are again helping steer Iraq policy. A key part of the new Iraq plan that President Bush is expected to announce next week — a surge in U.S. troops coupled with a more focused counterinsurgency effort — has been one of the chief recommendations of these neocons since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

This group — which includes William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, and Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst at a prominent think tank, the American Enterprise Institute — was expressing concerns about the administration's blueprint for Iraq even before the invasion almost four years ago.

In their view, not enough troops were being set aside to stabilize the country. They also worried that the Pentagon had formulated a plan that concentrated too heavily on killing insurgents rather than securing law and order for Iraqi citizens.

These neoconservative thinkers have long advocated for a more classic counterinsurgency campaign: a manpower-heavy operation that would take U.S. soldiers out of their large bases dotted across the country and push them into small outposts in troubled towns and neighborhoods to interact with ordinary Iraqis and earn their trust.

But until now, it was an argument that fell on deaf ears.

"We have been pretty consistently in this direction from the outset," said Kagan, whose December study detailing his strategy is influencing the administration's current thinking. "I started making this argument even before the war began, because I watched in dismay as we messed up Afghanistan and then heard with dismay the rumors that we would apply some sort of Afghan model to Iraq."

If Bush goes ahead with the surge idea, along with a shift to a more aggressive counterinsurgency, it would in many ways represent a wholesale repudiation of the outgoing Pentagon leadership.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 4, 2007 8:46 AM