Today’s Must Read

Finally, we have a definition for “surge.” From The New York Times:

The day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008, military officials said Wednesday.

And the number of troops? The administration has admitted the need for 21,500 extra combat troops, plus as many as 7,000 additional support troops (though they’ll likely need many more), plus “some 2,200 additional military police,” according to the Times. That’s a total of 30,700, bringing the total number of troops in Iraq to approximately 160,000.

So there’s your “surge.”

Now, the Times cautions that this timetable is just “a confidential assessment” by the commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno and has yet to be vetted by Gen. David H. Petraeus, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and others.

And there are clear consequences:

…if Mr. Bush decides to extend the buildup, the first of the Army brigades to return to Iraq with less than a year at home are likely to do so later this year.

“As you move to less than a year, you’re beginning to erode the ability of the service chiefs to produce a ready force,” said a senior Pentagon official…

But, then, maybe that’s looking at the situation from the wrong perspective. As a “senior Defense official in Iraq” tells the Times, “There is Washington time and Baghdad time.” He continues to make a statement that can be read in about five different ways:

“Some in Washington want it now, and there is reality on the ground in Baghdad. They don’t always match.”

Not the first time that reality in Baghdad hasn’t conformed with reality in Washington, for sure.

In any case, the administration needs to make a decision “soon,” the Times reports, to make sure the force is kept at that higher level by identifying which units are staying longer or going back earlier.

Note: The Dems seem poised to play out their “Bad Cop” role with regard to Pakistan, making good on Good Cop Cheney’s threat.