GWB's "Plan for Victory"

[BigV]

The speech.

The plan.

As I absorb more of this information, I am finding a common thread in the ever-changing words from this administration. In '03 it was "Mission Accomplished" and in '05 it is "A Plan For Victory".

Then:


Now:


While I understand the position that a strict timetable for the withdrawal of troops is a poor strategic choice, the reasons for why it has come to this stage are more interesting to me. When I am after my kids to do their chores, I'm often repelled with a volley of excuses, after this show, I have to save my game, I'm on the phone, it's dark outside, I did it yesterday, and my favorite, I will. Excuse, excuse, excuse.

You've all heard the same old song. I may have sung a few verses myself, back in the day. But the dynamic is the same, delay, maybe enough to get out of the job, offer something that distracts, shift attention and responsibility off them and anywhere else. When I get the most tired of parrying these attempts at negotiation, I set a time limit, after which either the work is done, or the consequence takes effect. The beauty of this situation is that it puts the responsibility on the kid to meet their obligations. And there's a timetable for doing so. And clear consequences for failure. The pressure is off of me to nag them into compliance, and onto them to manage their own priorities. And the objective, implacable clock ticks away the intervening minutes. The most beautiful useful thing about the clock is that it is measurable. Now is the time, is the work done? No more of the, I will, After this show, Just a minute.

An objective, measurable threshold is the very thing that motivates my kids to action, and the very thing that this administration fears most. By having something measurable, it faces the real possibility of having its performance evaluated objectively as a failure.

This is present in the speech made today too. All subjective, all personal, all unmeasurable, all unrefutable "pillars" of the plan for victory. The reason it is unsatisfying to hear these platitudes is that the "political capital" that President Bush once claimed he had, is long gone. His credibility is ruined. People don't trust him, because he's earned a reputation for not talking straight, to put it politely. And as with my kids, when they've given me reason to doubt their likelihood to follow through with their responsisbilities, I demand greater assurances. This is GWB's dilema now. This plan for victory may well become the history of the eventual success. But we want to know now what is going on, what will happen next.

There aren't any good reasons for measurable metrics and timeframes to be rejected. We could argue about unreasonable timeframes, but not that an end to our occupation exists. We could argue about unfair measurements, but not that our progress should not be measured. Rest assured, Mr President, your success is measured every day. If you will not compromise with us on what those measures will be, we will choose our own measures. I doubt you'll be happy with them.

[Undertoad]

There aren't any good reasons for measurable metrics and timeframes to be rejected.

Stating a specific metric would make that the metric greatly visible, to both sides, but no particular metric represents victory.

[Happy Monkey]

He said "metrics" if a victory can't be defined by a set of metrics, it isn't possible to be victorious.

Who needs metrics when you can make statements like this one (from the Plan):

Coalition troop levels, for example, will increase where necessary to defeat the enemy or provide additional security for key events like the referendum and elections. But troop levels will decrease over time, as Iraqis continue to take on more of the security and civilian responsibilities themselves.

So, troop levels will decrease, but not really. Or maybe they will. But then again...

[Undertoad]

That's still bullshit. You could pick ten different metrics and they could all be wrong. Setting such things is micromanagement, and complaining about such things is entirely political.

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

So, troop levels will decrease, but not really. Or maybe they will. But then again...

America's rising opposition against an unjustified war is giving Islamic (including Iraqi) civilians a new opinion on this American invasion. Because America may be forced out (like in Somalia and Vietnam), Islamic civilians are suggesting that outright violence and terrorism may no longer be necessary. American domestic opposition to the "Mission Accomplished" war for the first time has locals thinking that America might just leave after all.

Save American lives. Demand we get out now. The administration will deny this. But the administration is wrong (so what else is new).

Currently, insurgent numbers and their attacks have more than doubled every year. This created because Americans remain in Iraq. How does America withdrawal when number of operational Iraqi battalions only diminishes; the current number having dropped to one? What happened in Falluja and so many other towns? Entire Iraqi battalions completely disappeared - probably into the insurgency. An American occupation makes effective Iraqi battalions unnecessary.

There are only two ways to get out of Iraq. Send in 1/2million to end it now. Or completely withdrawal so that Iraqis are forced settle things at the negotiation table - either by meeting up front or driven to the table by civil war. Civil war in Iraq remains a viable alternative the longer the US remains. Under the George Jr status quo plan, civil war becomes a more likely possibility every year. The Iraqi military cannot grow as fast as the insurgency.

Trying to solve Iraq with too few American troops - 100,000+ - is a fool's solution. Either we are in or we are out. Only 100,000+ troops means the insurgency will grow until Civil War is inevitable.

Previously most Islamic people believed the US was in Iraq intending to stay. Truth be told - they were probably correct. That probably was the intent of George Jr - actually Cheney. Americans are finally learning what was obvious years ago. We've been here before. It was called Vietnam. And yes, the administration insisted that army could defend itself. We stayed in Vietnam so long that the S Vietnamese army no longer had a hope in hell. The insurgency in Vietnam grew larger and faster because the Americans were there.

[tw]

John Burns who has spent many years in Iraqi has reported on Charlie Rose for those many years. History demonstrates he has truly seen what is happening and therefore what will probably happen. Last night Burns summarized the situation acutely:

The Iraqis will never stand up until the Americans stand down.

IOW what George Jr proposes will never end the war. Either we are fully in or we must get out.

Richard Clark confirms this. First, Clark believes the administration wants bases in Iraq. Second, the president's Annapolis speech basically calls for a ten year diminished occupation of Iraq. The administration wants influence in the government and in the oil. Third, the administration has no idea what is really happening in Iraq. Fourth, as long as Americans remain, the insurgency will grow. The greatest force fueling the insurgency is American presence. In a recent Arab league meeting, the one fact that all factions - Sunni, Shia, etc agreed upon was that America did not belong in Iraq. Fifth, the longer we remain, the more attacks will be staged upon domestic US. Sixth, the Iraqi army is trained in and therefore cannot operate without American logistics. Seventh, the administration has made democracy a bad word in the Middle East. Anyone advocating democracy is regarded as advocating an American dominance. Clarke suggests the George Jr administration could have promoted democracy covertly. But instead they have overtly promoted democracy so as to associate democracy with an American occupation. Eight, the CIA wants out of the prisoner game. An insurgent prisoner only has useful information for a few months anyway. But since CIA has been forced to run covert prison camps, the CIA is promoting much of this 'American prison camps in East Europe' news so that the administration must let the CIA get out of the prisoner business.

You tell me where a solution is found in the president's speech? Those whose life has been about this stuff say the president's agenda is a formula for defeat. Richard Clarke, for example, suggests our best strategy is a complete withdrawal within 18 months.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's still bullshit. You could pick ten different metrics and they could all be wrong. Setting such things is micromanagement, and complaining about such things is entirely political.

Sure, there's no upper limit to the number of wrong or inappropriate measures. But I'm not talking about micromanaging the war. That's not my department. We have competent military planners that understand far more about military strategy than I do.

I believe those same planners understand much more about military strategy than those in the uppermost levels of this administration do. I also believe those planners work for, answer to the administration. As such, the administration is entitled/obligated to set the goals and the military is obligated to establish the means, the strategy. The administration is entitled to know what the strategy is, and have it explained as to how it achieves their goals.

Furthermore, I believe that the administration works for, answers to me, and to you. It's not an academic notion, it's not fantastic. It's real. They *do* work for us. And we're not getting the same satisfaction. We are entitled to know what the goals are, and what the strategies are to reach those goals. Just tell the truth, for cryin out loud.

Why not? Why not?! When I'm in a situation where I'm tempted to withhold the truth it's because I'm worried something bad will happen, like I'll get caught in the wrong, or that the truth will hurt. There are other motivations for withholding the truth, and I think this administration is not telling the truth. This makes we wonder about the truth I feel I'm not hearing *and* the reasons why not. I think I have a lot of company in this regard.

Let the military tell us what the metrics are. When will they know they can come home? Is sharing that somehow aid and comfort to the enemy? Will our soldiers stay and stay and stay with no sign of leaving and then vanish in the middle of the night, so as to keep the withdrawal a "secret"? To what purpose?

I think about why we get the communication and the lack of communication we suffer...I think about why the reasons changed so much, and with so little acknowledgment of the changes, just flat ignoring the changes. Why? The theory that feels the most reasonable and is at the same time the saddest is that they're winging it. Tap dancing. Making it up as they go along. I resist (with only partial success) the more dramatic conspiracy theories.

What is the truth and why have we had to wait so long to hear it? That's what I want to know.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That's still bullshit. You could pick ten different metrics and they could all be wrong.

And if you have no definition of victory, you never leave.

[Undertoad]

This administration is criminally terrible at communication. But this National Strategy document ("the Plan" BigV pointed to) is a strong effort IMO.

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

• In the short term:
  • An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
• In the medium term:
  • An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
• In the longer term:
  • An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
  • An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
  • An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

That's the short of it, the long of it is like 30 screens long. The next post is another section of it...

[Undertoad]

OUR STRATEGY TRACKS AND MEASURES PROGRESS

• We track numerous indicators to map the progress of our strategy and change our tactics whenever necessary. Detailed reports -- both classified and unclassified -- are issued weekly, monthly, and quarterly by relevant agencies and military units.
  • Many of these reports with detailed metrics are released to the public, and are readily accessible. For example:
    • Gains in training Iraqi security forces are updated weekly at www.mnstci.iraq.centcom.mil;
    • Improvements in the economy and infrastructure are collected weekly by the State Department (www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/) as well as USAID, which continually updates its many ongoing programs and initiatives in Iraq (www.usaid.gov/iraq);
    • Extensive reports are also made every three months to Congress, and are accessible at the State (www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/2207/) and Defense (www.defenselink.mil/pubs/) Department websites.
• Some of the most important metrics we track are:
  • Political: The political benchmarks set forth in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546 and the Transitional Administrative Law; the number of Iraqis from all areas willing to participate in the political process as evidenced by voter registration and turnout.
  • Security: The quantity and quality of Iraqi units; the number of actionable intelligence tips received from Iraqis; the percentage of operations conducted by Iraqis alone or with minor Coalition assistance; the number of car bombs intercepted and defused; offensive operations conducted by Iraqi and Coalition forces; and the number of contacts initiated by Coalition forces, as opposed to the enemy.
  • Economic: GDP; per capita GDP; inflation; electricity generated and delivered; barrels of oil produced and exported; and numbers of businesses opened.
• Other indicators are also important to success, but less subject to precise measurement, such as the extent to which principles of transparency, trust in government institutions, and acceptance of the rule of law are taking hold amongst a population that has never known them.
• These indicators have more strategic significance than the metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use as a measure of progress or failure: number of bombings.

That last point is a little snarky.

[Undertoad]

By the way, I totally reformatted those bits for our consumption. I tried to copy and paste the bits, but it looked like ass. So I went into with the advanced editor and used the list feature, and then I manually "nested" the bullet points that were supposed to nest.

[warch]

Other indicators are also important to success, but less subject to precise measurement, such as the extent to which principles of transparency, trust in government institutions, and acceptance of the rule of law are taking hold amongst a population that has never known them.

Hmmmm... What about those of us who have known them, or thought we had? Oh. We're talking Iraq.