Recently, Congressman John P. "Jack" Murtha, a blunt former drill instructor, retired Marine colonel and decorated Vietnam veteran, called upon President Bush to immediately withdraw a large percentage of American forces from Iraq. "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," he said. "We have become a catalyst for the violence." Days after an acrimonious debate in Congress, President Bush -- to his credit -- quieted the arrogance of his militarily-inexperienced lieutenants, paid Murtha his respects, but then simply announced: "I disagree with his position."

Fair enough -- a president owes no man an explanation. But Murtha deserves one, and so do we. The congressman's comments represent those of a loyal opposition, something more important to a healthy body politic than many of his critics might appreciate. Colonel Jack Murtha is Cincinnatus, not Cindy Sheehan; Marcus Aurelius, not Michael Moore. He is a tough, fair-minded supporter of America's warriors who has the courage to argue that perhaps these warriors have done enough in Iraq. He's also been there, shedding his blood on foreign land in his own war while others… were not. Murtha is the president's platoon sergeant -- the man with the fortitude to give what the military calls "push-back," asking the hard questions that our republic must pause, consider, and address.

One of the timeless tenets of infantry officer training is the supreme importance of a platoon sergeant in a commander's professional development. The dynamic tension -- and explosive growth -- that occurs when intelligent, naïve junior officers meet grumpy, battle-hardened enlisted men represents the glue of officer/enlisted relationships within the infantry. When famed 19th century Marine Lieutenant Pressley O'Bannon was sprinting towards the shores of Tripoli, some gunnery sergeant was frantically keeping accountability, distributing extra musket balls and hardtack rations, and cursing the impetuousness of this damn young officer.

Congressman Murtha has come late to his role -- General Anthony Zinni and former Navy Secretary James Webb had played the part prior to the invasion of Iraq (which Murtha supported). But at least somebody has filled the shoes; any unit without a platoon sergeant is in bad shape. Without a veteran voice of reason to occasionally "wave the bullshit flag," rookie officers might find themselves leading their platoons for hours in the meandering jungles of befuddlement. As they pull out their maps and compasses, trying -- and failing -- to look like the experts they aren't, young lieutenants often learn the hard way that they should have paid attention two hours ago to the gravelly voice on the radio that had said, "Sir, take a left. You're way off course. Trust me."

The flip side is that platoon sergeants don't always live up to the wise warrior image. Some senior enlisted grunts take pride in trash-talking young officers while not recognizing their own experience offers little in the way of substance. While Murtha is not arrogant, his statements -- like a sergeant major's sea stories -- are often spiced with hyperbole.

"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha said. Not quite. Although U.S. forces are regularly attacked throughout Mesopotamia, Iraqi civilians have borne the brunt of two ruthless years of car bombs, kidnappings, and thuggery. Al Qaeda in Iraq claims that their primary target is the hearts and minds of their countrymen. If this is true, then attacking Americans is simply a means to an end, and we could only assume their plight would worsen if we left the region.

Nonetheless, like military units, American citizens desperately need this form of loyal opposition. This country is three years into the war in Iraq and over four years into an open-ended "struggle against violent extremism" (or twenty-six years, depending on who's counting.) Not counting the few weeks of post-9/11 harmony, our president has still failed to unite his clans behind a common vision.

We are told we are at war, yet taxes fall, entitlements rise, and only a small fraction of Americans are paying any price. Magnetic car ribbons in Des Moines don't matter in Ramadi, but mandatory fuel conservation or energy efficiency might be a good start in moving the republic from dependence upon our enemy's resources.

Those who consider Congressman Murtha's calls for withdrawal to be strategically unsound should argue their case and let the citizens decide. But they - like Congressman Murtha - should base their opinions on the concentric effects of their decision and not simply immediate political consequences. Congressman Jack Murtha's questions -- seasoned by the wisdom gained from his enlisted and officer experience -- are as patriotic as any raised since the start of this enterprise. Rather than parroting disagreement, the president should consider their merits and articulate a clear response.

Can the military sustain the effort in Iraq for the nine years it will be required to win a counterinsurgency? Are the citizens of our republic willing to pledge that sacrifice? After three years, is the plight of Iraq still our responsibility? Is this even about the Iraqi people, or are we just "fighting them over there instead of over here?" How much longer can the Army Reserve and National Guard hold out? Are permanent bases in Iraq worth the price in blood they will cost, and what useful end will they serve? If national prestige and honor are at stake -- we can't withdraw because it would look weak -- then how long are the citizens willing to let the warriors fight just for honor's sake?

What do you say, sir? Perhaps we could hold the perimeter while you and the platoon sergeant talk this one over. Whether forward or backward, at least get us together.

Your platoon would really appreciate some leadership.