In the New York Times, Michael Gordon suggests that the presidential candidates are flunking Iraq 101. Our commanders in Iraq are always careful to emphasize that a long and difficult job still lies ahead if we follow through on the Bush administration’s “stay the course” strategy. In contrast, campaigning politicians only address the public impatience with an open-ended occupation, either by promising prompt withdrawal (the Democrats) or by suggesting that victory may be near (the Republicans).

Of course, the exception is John McCain, who has given his opinion that a 100-year occupation of Iraq seems reasonable.

“Unless you are suppressing insurgents the way the Romans did — creating a desert and calling it peace — it typically can take the better part of a decade or more,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“The paradox,” he added, “is that counterinsurgency requires convincing the Iraqis of our staying power. At the same time, the American people view success in terms of how quickly we can pull out.”

The political debate about our Iraq strategy ought to address the contradictions that flow from the “Pottery Barn Rule.” Iraq is broken, we own it, and we don’t have the means to fix it.

In the Washington Post, Andrew J. Bacevich has an op-ed entitled Surge to Nowhere that may be the best thing ever written about the so-called “surge.” I haven’t got time to summarize it, and the entire thing is worth reading. One point Bacevich makes is that the only success of the “surge” has been to achieve Bush’s goal of postponing any meaningful political debate over when and how to withdraw. Thanks to the “surge,” the next president will have to deal with Iraq as the nation’s number one priority.

There’s a significant irony that Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage overlooked when they warned President Bush about the “Pottery Barn Rule” back in 2003. The Pottery Barn store chain doesn’t have a “you break it, you own it” rule. Instead, like smart business people everywhere, they write off broken items as a loss.

This is why “strategic reset” is the best plan to end the occupation of Iraq. America needs to get our Army back, re-think strategic priorities, take care of business in Afghanistan, and begin the process of restoring our nation’s good name around the world. Iraq has nothing to offer the USA that is commensurate with the costs of continuing a $10 billion per month occupation.

UPDATE: The Armchair Generalist reviews the weekend’s op-ed pieces and concludes:

The current military strategy isn’t going to hold once the surge troops come back. That’s why no one is expecting to see an end to American troop presence in Iraq within the next year. The consequences of this strategy could lead to thousands more American and Iraqi deaths during the next four years. Unfortunately, you’ll not hear these debates coming from the current political candidates or from the empty talking heads on the evening news.