The surge is on, or is it?

Suddenly, the troop "surge" is approved by commanders in the field. Odierno's not a surprise, but Casey is after his previous reluctance. The Joint Chiefs and the soon to be retired Abizaid are still not on this "approval" list.

I wonder what sort of bargain Gates struck with Casey to change his mind. (Did he promise him Abizaid's Centcom job?)

Top U.S. military commanders in Iraq have decided to recommend a "surge" of fresh American combat forces, eliminating one of the last remaining hurdles to proposals being considered by President Bush for a troop increase, a defense official familiar with the plan said Friday.

The approval of a troop increase plan by top Iraq commanders, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr. and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, comes days before Bush unveils a new course for the troubled U.S. involvement in Iraq. Bush still must address concerns among some Pentagon officials and overcome opposition from Congress, where many Democrats favor a blue-ribbon commission's recommendation for the gradual withdrawal of combat troops.

Second point: Further on, this article indirectly ties the "surge" to the political efforts to "marginalize" Sadr. All indications are that Maliki and the other constituents of the Shia block are not going to let that happen. So does the US go after Sadr and ignite a Shia insurgency? Does it try to simply multiply the current tactics?

The Joint Chiefs main objection is that this "surge" must have a mission for those extra troops, a military purpose, but, maybe, this whole surge conversation predicated on pressurizing Iraqi politics? Maybe the discussion has a political purpose.

That would grant alot more subtlety to this administration than their past record would recommend, but I just want to introduce the idea.

(Oh, and if the purpose was to reinforce the moderates and marginalize Sadr, it appears not to have worked.)

(Thanks to Reality Based Educator for the article pointer.)