Reflections on this Weeks Iraq Discussion

I'm stepping out of my comfort zone for this topic, but there is an interesting discussion taking place over at CDRs place regarding Iraq. For the record, I read Michael Yon and love his work.

I find it interesting how the surge is often called a strategy. I see the surge as a tactic, effective and with purpose. I see the continued presence of US forces as the strategy, with the surge in that context, and I don't like that we are not allowed to openly discuss what our national strategic ends are. The ways are centered on presence, the means are centered on both military forces and other government teams, and the context is clearly the entire Middle East.

But to what end within the greater context are we striving for with our Iraq strategy? Blunt Iranian influence? Blunt Saudi influence? Reshape the region with undertones of moderation for Islam? Secure oil for our nation? Hold territory in the Middle East?

Iraq is not only about Iraq, so there is a broader purpose left unstated. None of those questions are unreasonable, nor in my opinion do affirmative answers to any of those questions necessarily represent a bad strategic purpose, although the answers might be potentially offensive.

I absolutely despise the fact that it has become a violation of some PC mentality on both sides of politics to discuss the purpose of our Iraq presence in strategic terms. I see this as the failure of both political parties in terms of the Iraq discussion. Both sides of politics concentrate heavily on tactical thinking regarding Iraq, example to surge troops or withdraw troops. Both parties tend to focus on the costs or gains based on a relative position, as if the spending measurement of lives or treasure or some reduction in levels of violence advances the football to their respective goal posts. I find all of those arguments, by both sides, barely relevant to the strategic ends of the Iraq War.

For all the ink spilled on the Iraq discussion, we have expectations it will one day end without the important discussion of ends in strategic terms. Under those conditions, no wonder so many Americans ask "what's the point" regarding Iraq. The point, or ends, or purpose for being in Iraq remains unstated in strategic terms. Until we can have that conversation, no one can explain what victory will look like, or speak credibly regarding why US forces should remain in Iraq. Defeat is easy to define though, defeat is the conclusion of the Iraq strategy without achieving our national strategic ends. In my opinion, without those strategic ends defined, we can't win or lose regardless of what our nation does.

62+ years later we are still in Japan and Germany. We are still in South Korea. We are still in Kuwait. All of those nations are enjoying tremendous economic success. I honestly don't have a problem if we stay in Iraq for the next 100 years (yes I know I'm taking McCain out of context) or if we pull out completely as Obama has suggested, as long aswe have a strategic purpose for being there all 100 years or however long before Obama pulls us out, and the strategic ends are achieved to the advantage of our national interest.

I understand we are seeing amazing events in Iraq that if sustained will lead to the reduction of US forces over the next few years, but I have to say, if we get to the end of Iraq and the strategic objective ends up to solely remove Saddam Hussein from power, it wasn't worth it. It frustrates me that on the left, both presidential candidates are content with that as the strategic ends of the Iraq strategy begun by President Bush, because I think broader vision is required.

We clearly aren't getting that broader strategic vision from Bush, and I'm not convinced McCain is any different. The broader strategic ends, whatever they might be, very much do matter. We have invested in Iraq enough to expect a return, when it is time to cash in the leader doing the cashing in fails our nation if they can't produce a return on investment.

I know what I want the strategic ends to be, the question is are we as Americans allowed to talk about that, or are we forced to continue to let people define it for themselves (those people include both the American people and our government leaders) as they see fit? That may or may not be a rhetorical question.