Iraq Debate

The debate over ''What do we do in Iraq?'' rages on. We would like to weigh in. Because we will all have different points of view on this topic, each of us will sign the bottom of our posts to indicate whose position you are reading.

Two days ago, Thomas Freidman of the NY Times, argued that the US has two polarized options that will determine whether the US military is in Iraq for 10 months or 10 years. Freidman argues that either the US military begins a phased withdrawal immediately that will have all troops out in 10 months, or they revamp the military efforts with a redeployment and an increase of 150,000 troops and stay in a rebuilding effort for 10 years. Interestingly enough according to the NY Times, Pentagon planners are considering sending 3,000 more troops, not 150,000. Really? REALLY? Ever heard the adage: ''Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me?'' Granted this assessment for the number of troops needed is not for the type of forceful military effort described by Freidman, but isn't that precisely the point. The objective of controlling the country and saving it from devolving into civil war cannot be won by minor troop enlargements every three months. If there is going to be a move made, it has to be made decisively with extreme force. The insurgents can be put down, but not lightly. If we are going to make an effort to control this situation by force, the let's control it by FORCE. The US military showed they are capable of securing an area with brutal force, see Afghanistan. The only necessary condition is the correct deployment of troops. If there are enough troops, the US military will get the job done. In all honesty, the situation in Iraq was never that simple, it was probably doomed to a disaster of some magnitude from the beginning. But did we have to botch it this badly?

Simple Answer: No.

The question then becomes, why didn't we do the right thing in the first place? Oh that's right, Donald Rumsfeld. The Donner was positive that the most brilliant military minds in America were incorrect when the said we needed more troops. He had no question about it in his mind; he was starting a new, sleeker, more efficient type of military campaign. Doesn't get much more sleek that three years of turmoil, and thousands dead. Bye, Bye Don. Thanks for the help.

As it is, when to remove troops may not be the president's or the Iraq Study Group's choice at all. Prime Minister Maliki said yesterday that US troops have six months, not ten, six. And after Bush’s promise that he would only stay in Iraq as long as the US military was wanted by the new Iraqi government, he might not have a choice but to move out.

I am aware that this post does not give a definitive answer to the question, that's because I don't have one yet. I will continue posting options as the discussion continues. For now, here is the Andrew Sullivan's view.

ajc