Sen Murtha set off a superficial debate over the Iraq War in Congress that was disguised as a heated debate. Unfortunately what should have been a lively debate on strategy degenerated into a simple debate between stay the course and turn tail and run. With the exception of a few extreme left leaning folks, our fellow citizens want to see us win in Iraq; however, continued support for the war will depend on articulating a strategy that resonates with both the American and Iraqi people. Both the “turn tail and run” and “stay the course” strategies do not offer much hope.

Sen. Murtha didn’t say turn tail and run, he said pull back. There is a significant difference, and it should at least be discussed from a strategy perspective. He also stated that the military did all it could do, (paraphrasing) and now the military was becoming part of the problem.

Going back to a discussion we were having elsewhere on this site, could a pull back of conventional forces from urban areas in Iraq actually be a moral offensive? This argument has been put forth by many people. Our presence in urban areas is frequently an antithesis to security. Our forces are constantly attacked and the collateral damage is high. Even when we kill one incident civilian the IO impact is extreme. The terrorists purposely target civilians and the blame still comes back to us to bear because we’re there in the first place. It is twisted logic, but that is what we must contend with. We have to deal with the world as it is, not the way we want it to be.

The real question then is what happens if we pull our forces out of the urban areas (minus a few advisors), and turn it over to Iraqi security forces?

1. If the terrorists/insurgents target them, then the argument can now be made they’re targeting the Iraqi people, and then it is possible (even probable) that the terrorists/insurgents will rapidly get to the tipping point and experience a cascading IO defeat. I’m not convinced that the Iraqi forces can’t defeat these guys, “if” they fight them with their rules. It may be ugly at first, but in the long run there would be fewer casualties. The Iraqis can keep the press out, minus a few hidden cameras that will inevitably get through. In the Washington Post today there is an article where the Shiite’s are asking for more leeway in fighting the insurgents. Here are a couple of key excerpts from that article: (note these are from a key Shi’te with an agenda, but I’m sure Kurds have similar thoughts, and some Sunni’s who desire to have a stable Iraq)

“The Americans are guilty of "major interference, and preventing the forces of the Interior or Defense ministries from carrying out tasks they are capable of doing, and also in the way they are dealing with the terrorists," Hakim charged.
He also urged the United States to take a tougher stand against countries harboring insurgents and their supporters, and called for faster trials of insurgent suspects.
The United States was being too weak against Iraq's insurgency, allowing attacks to mushroom. There are plans to confront terrorists, approved by security agencies, but the Americans reject that," Hakim said. "Because of that mistaken policy, we have lost a lot.
"For instance, the ministries of Interior and Defense want to carry out some operations to clean out some areas" in Baghdad and around the country, including the volatile Anbar province, in the west, he said. "There were plans that should have been implemented months ago, but American officials and forces rejected them," he said. "This has led to the expansion of terrorism.
"We have a capacity to move more quickly than currently," he said. Hakim charged that the United States, evidently fearful of alienating Sunnis, was blocking the arrests of Sunni political leaders who had ties to insurgents. "The mixing of security and political issues" was just another U.S. mistake, he said. "Terrorists should know there would be no dealing with them."End of excerpts

While not trying to be melodramatic, we seemed to have forgot that war is hell, and that someone will lose. I sometimes wonder if our sense of political correctness has invaded our strategy policy due to our attempts to baby the Sunni as they continue to wage a bloody terrorist campaign against our troops and the citizens of Iraq. The Kurds and Shi’te can bring the Sunni to the negotiating table much quicker than we can. While simplistic, it is a perfect example of being cruel to be kind.

2. If we pull back as defined above, then what role do our conventional forces provide? They are still required to be in proximity to back up the struggling Iraqi Security forces. Pull back is not retreating, it is strategically positioning for optimal effect. Furthermore, if we’re truly fighting a war on terror, then there will be no safe havens for terrorists, so conventional forces “could” be postured in an offensive manner on key border areas to eliminate those safe havens, which would do more to ensure the success of the Iraqi security forces than for us to attempt to provide security in the urban centers where we simply alienate the Iraqi people and feed the insurgency, and suffer casualties disproportionate to the effect we’re achieving. Using conventional forces to pacify areas such as Falujah is appropriate, but these areas must rapidly be turned over to Iraqi Security Forces, then our fighting units pull back to refit for the next fight.

Now going back to SEN Murpha’s plan of pulling back (not retreating) so many days after the election, is it such a bad idea? While I expect a heated conversation on this, I ask the readers not to degenerate to slander and to stay focused on a strategy that will get us to victory. If you don’t think it work, then state why? This wasn’t done on the hill.