In an indication of how tough bipartisanship is going to be on Iraq, differences between two senior United States lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee came in the open about how the US administration should proceed in a war.
The White House will soon be presented a number of options on Iraq and one of them from the Pentagon will suggest that the US adopt the 'go big' strategy -- injecting more troops in and around Baghdad with a view to containing the insurgency.
"Criminal enterprises in Iraq -- whether it's smuggling oil or kidnappings and extorting ransom -- are what are financing the insurgency. That's why I believe we have to go big, in the terms of the Pentagon," Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas said.
"We have to surge additional force there so that we can not only clear areas in Baghdad but also actually hold them," he added.
"I think we're talking about 20-50,000 more troops to embed them with the Iraqis, so that when we clear areas, we can actually secure them. Then we need to disarm the militias. We need to arrest al-Sadr and make sure the government has a monopoly on the use of legal force," he said.
His Democratic colleague Jack Reed of Rhode Island sharply disagreed saying that adding more troops is not going to make any difference.
"I think 20,000 extra troops would probably not be decisive in terms of changing the political dynamic and the security dynamic in Iraq," he said.
"And indeed, we'd have a very difficult time sustaining an additional 20,000 troops over, say, a year or more. A third of our brigades in the United States are reporting non-deployable because of personnel and equipment shortages," Reed argued.
"So the prospect of a magic bullet with just more troops, I don't think is there. In fact, General Abizaid indicated in his testimony that he would not recommend additional troops. This is a political crisis," he added.
Noting that it was a political crisis, he said, "What we have to do is engage this government, the Maliki government and make tough political decisions, that they'll go after the militias, that they'll start providing adequate security for the people, that they'll deliver services.
"This week, or a few days ago, the health ministry was attacked by Sunni insurgents. One reason is that the health minister is part of the Mahdi army and that he refuses to deliver any materials to hospitals in Sunni areas. So this is a political issue," Reed said.
When pointed out that American commanders on the ground like Gen John Abizaid are generally against the infusion of additional troops into Iraq, Cornyn said what the General is not taking into account is the political reality in the United States.
"It's not going to happen in the face of this kind of lawlessness. We're not talking about an open-ended commitment.
"We're talking about a temporary surge and get that basic security to allow the political institutions to work out their differences" he said.
