National Strategy for Victory In Iraq

[oldreliable67]

Before his speech at the Naval Academy today, the Administration released a 38 page doc titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". The doc defines what victory in Iraq means in the short, medium and long terms. The plan calls for pursuing three tracks: political, security and economic. This declassified version of the plan is said to be part of a much longer and more comprehensive report. The pdf version is here.

My first impression after a quick read: more detail and more information, but it is all rather common sense. Nothing new or sensational. However, it does posit some milestones and benchmarks that will be useful to observers in the coming months.

Read it and flame on!

 

[KCConservative]

Before his speech at the Naval Academy today, the Administration released a 38 page doc titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". The doc defines what victory in Iraq means in the short, medium and long terms. The plan calls for pursuing three tracks: political, security and economic. This declassified version of the plan is said to be part of a much longer and more comprehensive report. The pdf version is here.

My first impression after a quick read: more detail and more information, but it is all rather common sense. Nothing new or sensational. However, it does posit some milestones and benchmarks that will be useful to observers in the coming months.

Read it and flame on!

I listened to the speech. It appears the administration is going to let more information out to the media and the public than in the past. No doubt they have kept Iraq strategy very guarded up to now. I'm glad he is starting to spell it out for the hard headed naysayers.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Too bad it wasn't issued in Feb 2003.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

I think that it is about time that the U.S adminstration has got a real plan, and objectives for Iraq. I agree with S.W. Moon that this should have been in place in 2003.

If you invade a country you should have some defined goals and objectives on the development of the country, post-war. Up until recently I haven't seen any concrete plans or vision for Iraq. It seems to me that U.S. administration just kind of did things as they went.

Problem with that approach is that it become reactionary, as we saw in Fallujah, the insurgency, unemployment issues, problems with drinking water, electricity and the deconstruction and reconstruction of the Iraqi army, etc.

If we learn anything from the Iraq war, is that that the U.S administration and the Pentagon planed very well for the battle, but poorly for the peace.

My question for any strong supporters of Bush, is why aren't you guys angry that that the Bush administration didn't have this strategy in place right from the start?

 

[oldreliable67]

My question for any strong supporters of Bush, is why aren't you guys angry that that the Bush administration didn't have this strategy in place right from the start?

To repeat from another thread...

"my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

...

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

...

"We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

Transcript is here.

Sounds kinda like his Annapolis speech, doesn't it? You know, the one that critics said finally articulated an Iraq strategy? The above quotes are from his speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, delivered on May 1, 2003.

 

[SKILMATIC]

To repeat from another thread...

"my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."

...

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

...

"We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

Transcript is here.

Sounds kinda like his Annapolis speech, doesn't it? You know, the one that critics said finally articulated an Iraq strategy? The above quotes are from his speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, delivered on May 1, 2003.

I know isnt it funny how it takes liberals about 2 more years to get it? I got what was going on before 2003 and what it was going to take. However, some others take a little longer I guess.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Again those comments made by George Bush back in 2003, are rhetoric, not a coherent strategy for Iraq.

I don't have a problem with Bush finally producing a road map for Iraq. Something that is tangible, and has set goals, tasks and objectives. Because without them no coherent progress can be made.

What I do object to, is being told that the comments made by President Bush on the USS Abraham Lincon are somehow a strategic plan.

Ask any CEO what a strategic plan should include, and he or she will tell you, that it should contain, targets, objectives, data relative to the present, and figures to aim for the future, and finally dates that the objectives/goals should be achieved.

That is a strategic plan....
President's Bush's comments in 2003 are not.

 

[oldreliable67]

aussielib,

What I do object to, is being told that the comments made by President Bush on the USS Abraham Lincon are somehow a strategic plan.

Yes, indeed, the comments on the Abe were rhetoric. But they also articulated and were reflective of an underlying strategy. A portion of that strategy was unclassified and released in printed form that contained all the hallmarks that you specify - as far as could be done in an unclassified doc.

The point is that remarks reflective of the strategy have been made consistently by Bush and other admin officials consistently, since the war began. To say that there has been no strategy is simply not true. Ok, until now, there has been no printed doc for folks to refer to with questions about the strategy. But that doesn't mean that docs did not/do not exist.

Can you imagine any government operation, large or small, war or otherwise, that did not require many, many dead trees. the Paperwork Reduction Act notwithstanding? Get real!