This is impressive reporting. These kinds of articles shape debate in Washington. Shows how MSM still has a level of access in the corridors of power that new media sources could only dream of.

This is a very well written article. It is just more evidence of how Bush is not only at odds with 75% of Americans but also with the Joint Chiefs, exactly the military experts he has claimed to take his directions re Iraq from all these years. This is painfully reminiscent of Vietnam where escalating the war and throwing more bodies into the fire did absolutely nothing in the final analysis.

This is an important story, crippled by the fact that sources remain anonymous. But the reporter can not be blamed for the lack of courage of the joint chiefs and their staff. If the opposition is unanimous, Peter Pace as leader should resign in opposition. Worse, from a military point of view, purports to show that the staff is split on strategy, when anyone with a history book knows that the last two offensives came in the early months of Jan and Feb. In other words, beans and bullets should already be delivered, and soldiers rehearsing their planned maneuvers--rather than this pointless jockying for power when they are all collectively losing the war. The late Col. Hackworth despised the perfumed princes, and this too late, ... More »

This aptly illustrates the tug-of-war between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Bush administration. It draws from a variety of sources like the Iraq Study Group, the White House, and in particular, the International Crisis Group.

Covers the subject, but the Chiefs who talked to the reporters knew they had to be given anonymity, because this administration demands everything be done in secret.