Joint Chiefs against Bush's troop increase plan

According to the Washington Post, the Joint Chiefs of Staff is in unanimous disagreement with the White House over a possible surge in U.S. troop levels in Iraq. The White House is considering sending anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 troops to the country for six to eight months. The option is one among many the Bush administration is seriously considering as a "change in strategy" for Iraq. According to the WaPo article, the Joint Chiefs don't seem to think the White House has ANY defined mission for Iraq:

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

Even the Pentagon has warned against the plan, saying it could lead to more targets for insurgents, and a broader appeal for terror recruiting:

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

One senior administration official spoke on condition of anonymity to the WaPo:

The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now, the official said. "Advocates would say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to plan in the long term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have time to wait?' "

That's rich. Yes, please, let's "afford" ourselves the luxury of only thinking short term. Ohhh wait, I guess you forgot that the Bush administration's inability to plan long term is the reason we're stuck in this quagmire that is Iraq to begin with. Please, I urge Republicans to make the same mistake twice, so they can make themselves even further irrelevant in American politics.