Strategic thinking regarding Iraq

From Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent

'It Becomes Almost Impossible To Find A Purpose In What We Do.'
By Spencer Ackerman 03/31/2008
A friend of a friend just received the following email from a junior officer serving in Iraq. It makes for especially powerful reading in the wake of the Second Sadrist Intifada. Reprinted with permission.

"... As far as things on the ground, the outlook isn't much better. In my opinion, what everyone fails to realize is that this is not a counterinsurgency. If we wanted to stay in Iraq, then it would be a counterinsurgency. But it is clear that our goal is to turn over power and pull out. So, in building our strategic endstate, it's pointless to set goals that relate to our presence in Iraq. If the "insurgency" is a function of our being there, then it is not an insurgency in terms of our endstate. For example, if one of our goals is to stop IED attacks on US forces, that is pointless. When we leave, there will be no more IED attacks on US forces. So our endstate needs to be different. We need to ask "if we left tomorrow, what would happen in Iraq?" and from there, we need to determine which of those anticipated results are unacceptable to us. Then we must aim our efforts on making sure those unacceptable results do not occur.

When I look at the problem that way, it becomes almost impossible to find a purpose in what we do."

At last, someone thinking strategically about Iraq, starting from a clear-headed consideration of a desired end-state!

And the identity of this strategic thinker?

A junior officer in the U.S. Army. (I assume this means captain or below.)

It's not clear that his major premise is justified - that "our goal is to turn over power and get out." That, at least, does not appear to be McCain's goal, nor does it appear to be the goal of the neocons still arguing for victory in Iraq, or the goal of our senior military commanders in Iraq.

But, if we accept the premise, the argument is beautifully framed. If the goal is to get out, any contemplated endstate ought not involve us being there. All intermediate goals that involve us being there ("no more IED attacks on U.S. forces") are just silly.

Does anyone above the rank of captain have this clear-headed perspective?

Aside: free advice to any and all Dem candidates for Congress, Senate, or President:

Challenge your opponent to explicitly describe the desired end-state in Iraq.

If nothing else, having to face this question will knock your opponent off balance!

Stop the madness!