Someone finally wrote it (sort of)

The WaPo finally wrote (at least part of) the article I have been waiting for discussing some of the reservations about "the surge" within the Pentagon command. Unfortunately, they only really outline Gates' and Fallon's objections (Fallon's are far stronger than we knew,) and they frame the dispute almost entirely in the past.

But if you want a little snapshot of how things really run,

When Rice told Crocker to get ready for talks with Iran, he asked her the "blindingly obvious" question of whether Vice President Cheney would allow it, a U.S. official said. Rice, according to the official, told Crocker that it "wasn't your lane," adding, "I'll work it back here. That's not your problem."

Let's remember that Rice got outflanked as the Iran EFP campaign emerged just in time to derail those talks.

(This would be much more useful if it was written on the present, not what happened from January to May, and had included the objections of Gen. Pace, Gen. Casey, and the other dozen or so active generals who disagree with the policy.)

And, as a counterpoint, check out how this headlines from the AP: "Bush advisers favor current war strategy." The advisers are Petraeus and Crocker. I don't know why, but that seems a little deceptive to me.