More troops

So, the decider has decided what he wants: More troops. What we're seeing right now is the administration, through its own officials and people like McCain, pushing the trial balloon.

(McClatchy) Bush weighing deeper commitment in Iraq, officials say. (Most detail on the plan.)

(WSJ) Call to Add U.S. Forces Is Resisted at Home, in Iraq.

(NYTimes) Military Considers Sending as Many as 35,000 More U.S. Troops to Iraq, McCain Says.

I found the NYTimes article interesting for two reasons.

First, the more you deny that your position is political, Mr. McCain, the more obviously it is political.

Second, check out how the NYTimes spins the "no more troops" position.

General Casey, the top commander here, is said to be cautious, arguing that an increase could lower violence in Baghdad, at least temporarily, but that it could also encourage Iraq’s feuding political leaders to delay tough decisions needed to stem the slide toward anarchy.

See, it's not that Casey, and presumably Abizaid, believe that more US troops will exacerbate the situation, it's that they want to maintain (or increase) the sectarian violence to put pressure on the government.

I find myself wondering who explained their position to the NYTimes that way? It's just an article about McCain pushing for more troops. I wonder who?

Also: Josh Marshall makes the point on the WSJ article, if the Iraqis are against more troops, and the generals are against more troops, "Who's for this exactly?.... Who's on this bandwagon beside the president and the pundits?"