Yesterday, the guest option writter for AMNewYork (a free newspaper given out in New York city) was Thomas Raleigh a retired Army lieutenant colonel. I would prefer to link to his article however, I have not been able to find a copy on line anywhere.
One ought not interpret sober stocktaking with defeatism, or blind support for an ill-defined and an inadequate plan of campaign with patriotism. "Staying the course" because "failure is not an option" may result not in victory, but failure on a regional, and a more tragic scale. We might avert such an outcome by engaging in a renewed, informed and responsible debate regarding not only the conduct of the war, but also the direction, priorities and effectiveness of the foreign policy and diplomatic efforts that must support its successful prosecution.
It is time for the president to assemble a group of "wise men" - from outside the administration - for an unvarnished assessment of efforts and progress to date in Iraq, and for their thoughts on how to:
1) Isolate and defeat Al Qaeda
2) Achieve the most favorable outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan
3) Encourage democratization in the region while maintaining a modicum of stability in the Middle East
4) Achieve each of these objectives in a manner that attracts broad support; among both those in the region and among our traditional allies and friends.
Ninety-six servicemen died fighting in Iraq last month; the highest number of fatalities since January 2005 when 107 troops were killed.
Honoring the sacrifice of the thousands of American show have served, been wounded or killed in Iraq does not preclude one from suggesting that the efficacy of our present course in Iraq is uncertain at best. Frank and substantive criticism of U.S. policy and strategy may help ensure that future efforts and sacrifice bring us closer to a secure Iraq, a more stable Middle East, and a world without Al Qaeda.
Also in the article...
While our armed forces are winning the battles - the tactical engagements -in the villages and cities of Iraq, we may in fact be losing the war. If true, it is because our senior policy-makers have utterly failed to sufficiently shape the strategic conditions in the region and globally - to win.
This looks like a dencent plan of action. Does it really need to be done only by the Whitehouse? If the Whitehouse does not do it, perhaps a few foundations could sponsor these "wise men" It would be great if those foundations were from the right and the left.
Who would you recommend for this group? How large. I would guess that it would be best if the group was between 7-13 people.
In many ways this is similar to my statement of "to many swords, not enough pens"