The discussion over the deteriorating situation in Iraq is gaining momentum after Andrew Sullivan started to express his concerns earlier this week. Those were brushed aside by Roger Simon who referred to the Belmont Club’s number crunching and concluded with the argument that things in Iraq are not as bad as they look and the obligatory comment that we should stick it out in Iraq, no matter for how long. Sorry Roger, that’s not the point because we all agree on that one.

The point is picking the right strategy to realize our objectives. The ultimate objective is: a free and stable Iraq where a democratic process is able to take root. That objective is under severe pressure as evidence is mounting that the elections scheduled for January are now very likely to be postponed. That’s only a setback on our way to realize our objective. Yet, it could have long term implications because such a delay is likely to be interpreted as a victory for the insurgents, be they Sunni, be they Shi’a. Then the question is: why is the realization of our objectives under pressure? Answer: the strategy is flawed.

The coalition forces have enough firepower to roll-up all the insurgent hotspots and regain full control of the country. That potentially could result in heavy casualties on the coalition side but also among the civilian population which has the following implications:

1. A negative impact on Bush' road to re-election;
2. It might alienate our rebuilding partners: ordinary Iraqis.

The first point is understandable but a war should be fought independent of an election cycle. There’s too much at stake and at this point in time many get killed or taken as a hostage precisely because of the deteriorating mess Iraq is currently in. To let that situation continue for any period of time is dangerous, I don’t think anyone could argue that point convincingly. Greg Djerejian makes some compelling arguments today as to why you can’t let things slip for any pro-longed period of time. Bush is probably gambling that the situation will hold until November 2 – and it might – but it may be a costly gamble. With the passage of time the insurgency gains momentum. David Warren put it bluntly earlier this week:

Election or no election, the Americans must now undo their mistake. They must, regardless of casualties, retake every town in the Sunni Triangle, and clean each one out, properly. Or, go home beaten by the Jihad. There really isn't a third option.

Precisely. So what about the second point? Would an all out attack destabilize the country to such an extent that elections and nation building would come under severe pressure and would be delayed indefinitely? It’s not possible to make a projection here, but given the importance of achieving that objective there are very few options. And with speculation of a civil war in the air it appears that there’s an even greater urgency to engage in rapid nation building. Again Belmont:

Civil war, if it eventuates, will not be result of military failure but from a lack of commitment to create a replacement Iraqi State. If we build it, it will come.

Military failure is unlikely but delaying decisive military action, because of electoral considerations, is dangerous and borders on the immoral. It’s the wrong gamble and will compromise achieving the key objective: building a free Iraq. Unleashing the maximum firepower may be equally dicey but it is the right risk to take. Yes, we should stick it out even if it takes twenty years, but we should adapt our strategy and revitalize our pro-activity to achieve the very basic objectives that underpinned Iraqi Freedom.

UPDATE: Stephen Green has similar thoughts, as does James Joyner.