Bush's speech

[Gav]

Frankly, I am surprised that no one has started a thread on this yet;
US to detail 'Iraq victory plan'

A copy of the strategy document is available for downloading and reading. I've had a brief skim until I can get around to reading it properly.

[esskreemr]

A plan for a war started 3 years ago. Great strategy there...

I haven't bothered to read it yet. I just figured it would be full of 'Happy Face' comments with a heavy sprinkling of 'Stay the Track' and 'We did the right thing' and 'We're not a bunch of idiots!'.

[latenight]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

A plan for a war started 3 years ago. Great strategy there...

I haven't bothered to read it yet. I just figured it would be full of 'Happy Face' comments with a heavy sprinkling of 'Stay the Track' and 'We did the right thing' and 'We're not a bunch of idiots!'.

But when you make a comment like that without reading the document, it really weakens your credibility in other posts you make about the subject.

I'm sure you were being humorous, but I think it ill advised.

The fact is we are in Iraq, for better or worse. The reasons why will be debated for a long time, but that doesn't change the fact that it is so.

While you may not agree with your political foes, it pays to know them well.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

A plan for a war started 3 years ago. Great strategy there...

I haven't bothered to read it yet. I just figured it would be full of 'Happy Face' comments with a heavy sprinkling of 'Stay the Track' and 'We did the right thing' and 'We're not a bunch of idiots!'.

If you'd read the document -- heck, even up to page 2 -- you'd have seen that it basically spells out the strategy that was decided upon in 2003, explains how it's been working since then, notes what's been achieved, and points out what remains to be done before it's all over.

[keith]

Isn't there a famous quote concerning plans and contact with the enemy......?

[Epee_Pox]

One I live by. "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." — Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke

But overall strategy is a different thing than the action-reaction-ohdamnwedidntexpectthatokayletstrythis-ditto of individual engagements.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by latenight

But when you make a comment like that without reading the document, it really weakens your credibility in other posts you make about the subject.

Come on, you're talking to a liberal about credibility. It's like talking to a zebra about Shakespeare.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

If you'd read the document -- heck, even up to page 2 -- you'd have seen that it basically spells out the strategy that was decided upon in 2003, explains how it's been working since then, notes what's been achieved, and points out what remains to be done before it's all over.

Actually, the document was produced to, "articulate the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining." In other words, it's the documentation for the war that was started with out a plan. It's written, not based upon the notes and intelligence available back in 2003... iand it backfills the strategic void that wasn't there when the war started, and using the same hindsight, can now pretend to have a clear vision of the future.

[Amadeus]

read the article, not the speech. thoughts:

1. though there is quite a bit of "wow, we're so awesome!" sort of crap in there, it actually seems to be pretty minor, and doesn't detract from the speech.

2. i really liked the graph at the end.

3. the active members of saddam's regime are going to wane until iraqi security forces can defeat them? it seems to me that it's a serious problem if a large group of people with a common goal (restoring saddam) are more powerful than the current army. and yeah, i know, that's why we're there, but that it seems to me that this tidbit doesn't bode well at all for the future

4. as has pretty much always been, no one has any idea if we're getting out, only that it's not anytime soon. or, as stephen colbert put it, "never."

5. i'm glad that bush laid out his plans, but they seem to be very general and long-term, which kind of makes me wish that i didn't know about them.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by latenight

But when you make a comment like that without reading the document, it really weakens your credibility in other posts you make about the subject.

Why? I stated that I hadn't read it yet. I intend to, it's just that I have other things on my list. My statements were merely based on the typical fair that is served. I have skimmed it, I actually brushed through the major headers right after I posted. Can't say that I've changed my opinion much. I'll get around to reading it fully eventually. It's a pretty short read, alot of areas that they had better pray very hard about, because it would take a divine intervention for the events to fall into place.

I'm sure you were being humorous, but I think it ill advised.

The fact is we are in Iraq, for better or worse. The reasons why will be debated for a long time, but that doesn't change the fact that it is so.

While you may not agree with your political foes, it pays to know them well.

So? You're telling me it wasn't more of the same?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Come on, you're talking to a liberal about credibility. It's like talking to a zebra about Shakespeare.

Are you calling me a zebra?

[latenight]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Why? I stated that I hadn't read it yet. I intend to, it's just that I have other things on my list. My statements were merely based on the typical fair that is served. I have skimmed it, I actually brushed through the major headers right after I posted. Can't say that I've changed my opinion much. I'll get around to reading it fully eventually. It's a pretty short read, alot of areas that they had better pray very hard about, because it would take a divine intervention for the events to fall into place.



So? You're telling me it wasn't more of the same?

No, I'm not. But I'm not saying it is, either.

I'm saying that when you make a statement that says you haven't read it and say " I just figured it would be full of 'Happy Face' comments with a heavy sprinkling of 'Stay the Track' and 'We did the right thing' and 'We're not a bunch of idiots!'.", it takes away from your other arguements on the subject. It also does nothing to quell the cries of "Sock Puppet" that you frequently endure.

Just advice, nothing more.

[jBirch]

Quick read of the executive summary:

The security strategy is flawed. It assumes an enemy that can be defeated militarily which is not the historical trend when dealing with insurgencies/terrorists. In fact, the trend is the opposite.

No information on how Democracy will be grown from the People. The plan is to impose it and defacto, Iraq will be democratic and free.

The entire plan is flawed in that it does not grow anything in Iraq but rather imposes it from America. That particular strategy is doomed to failure.

Reading deeper, the plan talks about the essential requirement for victory in Iraq. Victory only denies the fruits of victory to the enemy but doesn't in and of itself secure any additional advantage to the people of the US. Basically, victory will restore the pre-Invasion status quo. Failure will significantly strengthen the terrorist organisations.

They implicitly acknowledge that it is not the Americans which must defeat the insurgency, but the grassroots people of Iraq yet the strategy articulates no real means to accomplish this. The current situation with the hostages taken recently (1 US, 1 UK, 2 Can, 1 Ger) is exactly how the rest of the war should be prosecuted. The organisations to which these individuals belong have suceeded in winning the hearts and the minds of the people. There is no mention in the "national strategy" for how the US as a polity will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Without that support, any strategy is doomed to failure. In fact, the support of the Iraqi people is NOT included in the set of conditions for victory. A fatal flaw.

Note too that a conspicuously absent metric for judging the success of the "Security pillar" is reduced number of bombings. They talk only about measuring intercepted and defused bombs but not of reducing their origin.

Further, the political track is centred around establishing a strong central government, something the founding fathers of the US itself realised was exactly the wrong way to go when building a strong independent nation. It is precisely the way to go to build a weak, dependent nation though.

I think the US security analysts fear a truly free Iraq may turn on them and become a regional enemy. They seem incapable of growing the solution and must, instead, impose one.

Basically, the plan seems to be "more of the same", which I think is still doomed to failure (or at least non-victory).

James.

[jBirch]

On a deeper read, it seems maybe I was overly hasty & harsh in my critique. Still not sure it will work, but it is predicated on Iraqi security and restoring services/infrastructure destroyed in the invasion.

Assuming the people are on board, it might work. If the Iraqi people continue to see a large US presence around every corner, they will continue to believe that the US occupies Iraq. This won't get the problem anywhere but worse.

Maybe drastic withdrawal isn't so bad of an option... I wonder if it can be done strategically though? Any reduction will be touted as an insurgent victory. Yet, the Iraqi people must be the ones to kick the insurgents out of the country or else the US will be there forever. The US can't be seen as propping up the government nor dictating their actions.

Tough situation. UN peacekeepers and a total US withdrawal might be the win-win answer.

James.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Are you calling me a zebra?

I hear that stripes are very slimming.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Tough situation. UN peacekeepers and a total US withdrawal might be the win-win answer.

Withdrawal might cure all ills, but the problem is that there's no way to test the theory short of actually withdrawing...and then if it fails everyone might well be worse off than had we stayed, and there'll be no way to rectify the situation. Guaranteed, once out we will NOT be going back in---not with the tenor of public opinion in both countries and the world being what it is right now.

And too, this tendency to withdraw as soon as the domestic 'loyal opposition' manages to gin up public opinion against a war has gotten us in a lot of hot water over the years. We are seen as fair-weather friends and toothless enemies, at least since Vietnam, and that guarantees more countries and groups preferring us as enemies than friends. ( And don't think the political lessons of Vietnam are lost on the 'insurgents'. If they've studied history they are surely aiming not to defeat us but to achieve just what is happening now: instill a fluttering timidity in American voters designed to bring about the same in elected officials, and thus stampede us into a hasty retreat. )

UN peacekeepers are no solution. They are even more toothless and irresolute than we have been in these situations.

[Teme]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

UN peacekeepers are no solution. They are even more toothless and irresolute than we have been in these situations.

Peacekeepers usually go in only after there's a profound interest in restoring peace and order by all sides of the conflict. That's why they're called peacekeepers.
At the moment, we don't actually know who are the sides, and against whom they are. It quite clear that peacekeepers had snowballs chance in hell to improve situation, if they're called to support the current Iraqi govenrment against insurgency.
On the other hand, if they're called in to replace Kurdish troops pacifying Sunnis, Sunni troops pacifying Shias and Shia troops pacifying Kurds, they could actually defuze the situation somewhat. Providing that Iraqi public credits them with more impartiality than they credit US forces.

A slightly OT tangent, but why is withdrawal considered a whim/loss/failure? Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon was hailed as great thing, was it not? Israel withdrawing from Gaza was celebrated as step into right direction, was it not?

[esskreemr]

I thought that this was appropriate to this thread since it is about the ongoing 'victory' in Iraq, should help color some of the statements being made:

President Bush November 30, 2005

"President Outlines Strategy for Victory in Iraq"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051130-2.html

The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army — with six Iraqi battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces — 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.

TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S. troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on Anderson Cooper yesterday.:

I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.

Did the President get more bad intel?

[Inquartata]

Gee, that one reporter was omnipresent enough to observe 16 battalions at once, "beginning to end"?!

That's a pretty good trick.