Another option in Iraq

David Limbaugh:

...

We read that a Pentagon study on Iraq is going to tell us we have three options: more troops ("Go Big,)" fewer troops but stay longer ("Go Long"), or pull out ("Go Home"). We hear the Iraq Study Group has no magic bullets, but will recommend that we negotiate with the terrorist states of Iran and Syria. If true, we should take this commission's recommendations with pillars of salt.

What about the fourth option? It is not just Gen. John Abizaid who is saying that troop levels in Iraq are not the problem. Some commentators agree, but go further, saying that we are not fighting the war to win, but are allowing the Iraqi government to handcuff us in our conduct of the war and pursuit of certain enemy factions.

I think it's time the administration responded to these questions directly with detail and specificity, if for no other reason than to stop the idle speculation among doubters.

Are we really forcing our troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs? If so, why? Is it because the administration believes that unleashing our forces will militate against Iraqi sovereignty? Even if so, isn't it time we reconsider the opportunity cost of such deference: that this war is dragging on longer than the American public is willing to tolerate?

Also, does the administration believe Iran and Syria are behind much of the terrorism and ethnic violence in Iraq? If so, how can we afford not to attack these "problems" directly? Or are we already?

Further, it might be helpful if the administration gave us a clearer picture of our desired end-game in Iraq. Isn't it true that we don't have to achieve anything close to a violence-free zone in Iraq in order to accomplish our mission and leave? Shouldn't our goal merely be to train the Iraqi troops to the point that they can furnish stability for a government -- preferably democratic -- that is friendly to the United States and that will not allow itself to be a safe haven or training ground for international terrorism?

...

I have made similar points, but David does a good job of explaining the political significance of such an option. We also need to get better at responding to the enemy's media war. That has been our biggest failure in this war and none of the options really address what we can do in that area. The enemy repeatedly says that half the war is in the media battle space and none of the options really address that battle space.