The White House has released the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”. Oh boy. The one sentence summary of “Victory in Iraq Defined”:
Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State
It goes into detail:
* Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
* Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
There’s really no concrete definition of victory here, still. But it seems that they’re saying we don’t leave until Iraq is a full western style democracy… with ponies. Of course, Iraq is currently a hotbed of violence with 150,000 U.S. troops holding down the fort, and shows no interest in western style democracy, preferring to enshrine religious Sharia law than anything resemble the U.S. constitution.
So when do we leave Iraq? According to this document, apparently when candy canes and unicorns take command.
How about we leave when the democratically elected government of Iraq asks us to leave?
Additionally, maybe you should try quoting from the remaining pages that supply a few more specifics. Did you even read it?
Why do you assume that our military goal in Iraq is to do more than merely to prevent our enemy from controlling the country? We have to maintain a political and military balance with the Iraqi citizens. It would require a much bigger footprint and more invasiveness to wipe out our enemy completely. If we keep the enemy knocked down then the Iraqis can finish the job with a smaller American presence.
I have a question about the “longer term” goal. Considering that the world’s strongest and oldest western-style democracy is only able, at this point, to fight the war on terror to a stalemate, how do we expect Iraq to be an ally shortly after stabilizing?
Furthermore, isn’t it pessimistic to assume that we’re still going to be fighting the GWOT by that time?
Did you even read it?
Probably not.
JWG -
I was referring to the Global War, not the Iraq War. You do realize, surely, that even if we kill Zarqawi and every other terrorist currently in Iraq, we still won’t have won the Global War?
Wars have many fronts. What’s your point?
[...] ink Progress provides a deconstruction of the Strategy for Victory document. Oliver Willis provides a summary: There s really no concrete definition of victory [...]
And what does the Iraq Victory Strategy have to say about the infiltration of the new Iraqi army with Shi’ite militiamen who kidnap, torture and murder Sunni civilians under the aegis of the Iraqi army, but whose loyalty lies with Shi’ite sectarian leaders? If those are the “well-trained” battallions at work, then we’ve done nothing but set the stage for an even more intense civil war. Oh, and we’ve given Iran a nice ally.
“How about we leave when the democratically elected government of Iraq asks us to leave?”
Did the Iraqi government not just ask us for a timetable for withdrawal? Where’s the timetable? Indeed this report specifically states that there will be no timetable. The report says this: “With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain. No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.” So right their the administration has decided to ignore the Iraqi government. It’s also pretending that people have been demanding a specific date for the declaration of victory. As in, “We aim to achieve victory on Dec. 20 2007.” That’s nonsense. A timetable is only a set a of specific benchmarks that we can use to gauge progress: “We aim to have 10 independent battle ready Iraqi battalions by March 2006. If we reach this goal we will redeploy 10,000 US troops.” And by we I mean the American people. As it stand now we there are conflicting reports of Iraqi troop readiness, no goals for reaching troop levels and readiness and no independent oversight to ensure that any of it is occurring at a reasonable pace at all.
What would you say if your boss came to you and said this:
“We have a project the successful completion of which is vital to the surrvival of our company. Failure to complete the project succesfully is not an option. You will have an unlimited budget to complete the project and there will be no final completion date set and no specific timetable will be set. There will be no indepencent oversight of your spending or your progress just check in with me occassionally to report on your success.”
What do you think the chances are that this project will indeed be a success?
And please, no serious document outlining a serious strategy should have to include sentences like this: “Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.”
This sentence is meaningless. Our mission is to win? Did fourth graders write this thing?
CUT AND RUN WITH IT
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED again. As poll numbers fall as Iraqis stand up, we will run as fast as we can we will stand down. Victory kind of is ours. Do not look at that request for yet more money the
JWG -
I was clarifying. You cut a piece out of my first post and then responded as if I was making assumptions about Iraq, when in fact I was trying to take in the larger scope of the GWOT, in which the stable Iraq is supposed to be an ally.
In rereading your response, it sounds like you’re advocating stalemate as a reasonable American goal for Iraq. I find it hard to believe that the Bush administration, or most Americans, would agree.
As to “wars have many fronts,” this is old thinking for old wars. The GWOT has hundreds of fronts and no easy way to identify them. Logan International was a front that we lost to twenty men and boxcutters. Amman, Jordan was a front that we lost to a psychotic married couple.
So we will have won in Iraq and can therefore leave when the government is stable, and we’ll know the government is stable…how, exactly? Because they hold elections? How do elections stop maniacs from plotting to detonate IEDs?
“Control the situation until the Iraqis can finish the job” sounds a lot like preparing to cut and run to me. What’s the criteria for “control”? What does the enemy force look like before we say “they’re beaten enough, you take it from here”?
We left the South Vietnamese our equipment and wished them the best of luck. That turned out great.
What you’re advocating then is not “finishing the job,” but doing as much as we deem fit and then crossing our fingers and hoping that the Iraqis can do it.
When Saddam began openly supporting terrorist organizations.
JWG –
Could you also inform us at what general point Iraq became a front in the global war on terror?
It is not a goal but a military strategy (but I don’t think “stalemate” is really accurate, though). In order to to more militarily in Iraq, we would have to put in more troops and cause more destruction. That would alienate more Iraqis. So we don’t try to completely destroy the enemy ourselves, but control the situation until the Iraqis can finish the job themselves. Victory in Iraq doesn’t mean we have wiped out every terrorist…no one in the adminstration has ever argued this.
From the WaPo article about the Iraqi timetable:
As the Iraqi government is able to defend itself with more Iraqi troops, then increasing numbers of American troops will leave. You can have achievable military goals without specifying specific dates.
Are you arguing that the statement is unnessecary because it’s obvious or because it is incorrect? Because if you support an immediate withdrawal then you aren’t advocating a victory, are you?
No, BD, that’s not what I’m saying. “Control the situation until the Iraqis can finish the job” means that we aren’t trying to completely destroy the enemy in Iraq at this time. It’s not “cut and run” if the Iraqis can defend themselves.
“Finishing the job” has several components. If you think one of them is “destroy the enemy ourselves” then please show me the evidence of this. (You won’t be able to since the Bush administration has repeatedly said the opposite.)
“The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.
Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.” George W. Bush
WTF?
“…… a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.” Uhhhhhhh, do ya’ think maybe Bush should be told………. that the citizens of the US of A would like the same luxuries?
JWG,
Are you confident that the Iraqi army is moving more towards a truly national, multi-sectarian, well-discipline force that respects basic human rights, and acts in the interests of all Iraqis? Or are you concerned that the new Iraqi army may end up more an amalgamation of sectarian and ethnic militia whose loyalties lay to their sect/ethnicity more than to the country, even though they wear the Iraqi uniform? This is the biggest concern I have about the future in Iraq. If the option is sectarian militia on one side and an indefinite US troop presence on the other, I say keep our troops in Iraq. Sectarian militia will lead to nothing more than total civil war and possibly genocide. The whole discussion about “Iraqi troop readiness” is missing the point. What might they be ready for? Defending the democracy against a violent insurgency? Or settling old scores with Sunnis and establishing an Iranian-style Shi’ite theocracy?
The President s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
I listened to the speech, heard John Kerry s reactions, and I ve just finished reading the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. The transscript of the President s speech is here. The Mahablog has a pretty good transcript of Kerry…
Elrod,
Good points. Iworry that the basic fabric of Iraqi society will not change and that the armed forces over time will revert , somewhat similar to what you describe. The neocons may have miscalculated the basic nature of Iraqi society. As always, hope I’m wrong here, hope you’re wrong. But if they are right, the pay off would be tremendous. Might ‘fix’ the entire mideast. Deal the final death blow to anti-semitism.
Dugger
“When Saddam began openly supporting terrorist organizations.”
Ya? When did that start?
“You can have achievable military goals without specifying specific dates.”
Everyone who works at a company or organization who sets goals without tying them to specific dates please let us know. Anyone here ever set a goal and not tied that goal to a ballpark date for completion? How did that work out for you? Could someone also please tell me why the military is magically free from the responsibility to estimate any kind of window for achieving its goals? Is this the way defense contractors operate? The Pentagon gives them a shit load of money and then says, “Get that bomber to us whenever?”
As for the WaPo article you failed to quote this:
“On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.
“By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready,” he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.”
That sounds like a timetable to me. It also sounds like deadline. It’s also a lot more specific than anything that’s in this latest “plan.”
“Are you arguing that the statement is unnessecary because it s obvious or because it is incorrect? Because if you support an immediate withdrawal then you aren t advocating a victory, are you?”
JWG, it’s incredibly, stupidly, mindnumblingly obvious. It’s so obvious it’s without meaning. “Our mission is to win”? Would anyone say our mission is to loose? It’s like the mindless filler spoken by sports announcers during slow games: “What they really have to do here today is go out there and win” or “If they want to win they’re going to have to go out there and score some touchdowns.” Fucking DUH! But this is what passes for a high level strategy discussion in the Bush White House. It’s sad really. And I won’t even dignify the other part of your comment — “Am I saying it’s incorrect” — with a response.
“Sectarian militia will lead to nothing more than total civil war and possibly genocide.”
God I hate to agree with Dugger, I just hate it, but he’s right that Elrod hits the nail on the head. If we stand up a Shiite dominated military to police a largely Sunni opposition all we’ve done is set the stage for civil war.
Integrating the military, any country’s military, can be an incredible force for promoting domestic integration and cross cultural/racial understanding. The US military was integrated between 1940 and 1965. That process wasn’t easy and it didn’t ease civilian integration either — far from it — but the military in that period was one of the first institutions in which blacks and whites were essentially forced to get to know each other, work together and learn to get along. That experience continues today. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/integration/IAF-FM.htm
But note that it took 25 years for the US military to fully integrate and reflect American society at large. We’re building the Iraqi army from the ground up and we’ve already blown it by failing to fully integrate it equal parts Sunni and Shiite. Are we going to have to be there another 25 years for the Iraqis to work it out?
The statement does have meaning if it differentiates between differing viewpoints. Will an immediate withdrawal facilitate a “win” in Iraq?
I thought the argument was that the Iraqi opposition was fighting to remove the occupiers. Are you now arguing that the insurgents are fighting for a reason unrelated to an American presence? Hmmm.
Based on what evidence? According to the US ambassador to Iraq in October:
Could give me a little further explanation of this comment: “You can have achievable military goals without specifying specific dates.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but the US military sets specific annual goals for recruitment. It then measures its progress toward those annual goals by looking at quarterly recruitment numbers. If it isn’t meeting its specific quarterly goals it adjusts its recruiting, marketing and incentive efforts. So the US sets timetables for itself to gauage the success of its recruitment efforts. Presumably it also sets a timetable for the training of these new recruits. I have to assume that basic training doesn’t go on for some unspecified period of time, right? New marines don’t just have, you know, whenever, to complete there training before they are sent out on active duty, right?
If the US military sets all these timetables for itself to reach its specific recruiting and training goals why are we exempting the new Iraqi army from such policies? Why do the Iraqis get to stand up, whenever, when the US army doesn’t even practice that policy and, indeed, could never function if it did?
Which one of Iraq’s diverse communities are represented by the uniformed death squads we’ve just found out about? But leaving that aside the Iraqi Army is indeed dominated by Sunnis and Kurds and we’ve only recently realized that that may not be such a good idea, especially when you are trying to prevent a civil war:
“U.S. officials are now attempting to create Iraqi units with more of an ethnic mix.
We have to build a system for them that is built for diversity, the Los Angeles Times quoted Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who leads to effort to train Iraqi security forces, as saying in Baghdad last week.
We are very careful to encourage and in some cases insist on diversity.
The 115 Iraqi army and special police battalions already declared battle ready, each numbering about 700 troops, are dominated by Shiites and Kurds, including many former members of political militias, the newspaper reported. (Those numbers are still well short of the 185,000 troops a Pentagon spokesman recently cited for total Iraqi security forces, Reuters wire service reported early this month.)”
http://www.d-n-i.net/grossman/iraqi_army_will_disintegrate.htm
“Are you now arguing that the insurgents are fighting for a reason unrelated to an American presence?”
Um, no. Where’d you get that idea? Our presence is exacerbating the problem of the Sunni resistance to what they perceive as a puppet government made up of their ethnic and political rivals and propped up by foreign occupiers. In preparing for our exit we’ve created a Shiite dominated army which increases the possibility that the whole place will melt down into civil war when we go.
And JWG, this new strategy document is supposedly a declassified version of a larger plan. Could you please tell me why the administration would include the phrase “Our mission in Iraq is to win the war” in a classified document? Could you tell me why they might have added it to the declassified document to differentiate it from other plans when it should be a given that whatever ever our mission is in Iraq the administration plans to win? Plus, I don’t think anyone has ever suggested a mission to loose the war. Even if you support early withdrawal you support a plan based on the opinion that there is no way to win or that we’ve already lost. Nobody “plans to loose” so why is there a need to differentiate this plan from a plan no one has ever come up with? And then put it in a classified document?
When dealing with unknown variables inherent in combat situations you don’t depend on artificial timetables. The military commanders definitely have “timetables” for when they expect certain events to be completed, but they don’t advertise them to the public. If they did, then the enemy would have a better idea on how to disrupt their plans by focusing their resources more efficiently. Additionally, “failure” to meet those timetables would be used by some (like yourself) as evidence of actual failure, when in reality it’s just due to changing circumstances in a dangerous and fluid environment.
JWG,
Good answer.
Dugger
Haw!
“We can’t tell you what success looks like because if we do, you might notice if we screw it up.”
Perfect. This is exactly the perspective I explained. If an arbitrary timeline needs to be adjusted because of the dynamic conditions inherent in warfare, there are those who will use it as a way to attack the administration. So all our enemy has to do, once they know a specific timeline, is to disrupt the timeline. Bush’s political opponents will do the rest by incorrectly claiming “failure.”
Quite.
I was happy to clairfy it for you.
“Additionally, failure to meet those timetables would be used by some (like yourself) as evidence of actual failure, when in reality it s just due to changing circumstances in a dangerous and fluid environment … all our enemy has to do, once they know a specific timeline, is to disrupt the timeline.”
This is nonsense. Utter, utter nonsense. Forget timetables, just announcing that we’re training Iraqis to defend themselves is the most grievous violation of your logic I can think of. Training Iraqis is the centerpiece of our plan and we let that cat out of the bag a while ago. The insurgents know were training Iraqis so they’ve been attacking policestations and Iraqi military buildings for the last year. What difference does announcing a timeline mean now? None whatsoever, except that it will allow us to actually measure how much of an impact the insurgent attacks are really having. By your logic Bush should be on the podium everyday insisting that our strategy hinges on a success round up of all Iraq stray cats. Shit, the insurgents would be bombing pet shelters and vets while we secretly trained an Iraqi army in the desert.
But you really don’t give a shit if the insurgents know what our timetable is. Not simply because knowing our timetable is irrelevant as some kind of military advantage. No, your biggest fear is that your fellow Americans will know what our plan is because you’re afriad they might criticize president Bush if he fucks up. That’s pretty weak for a democracy. Your strategic reasoning is entirely empty so all you have left is your political ass covering agenda.
And yes, if we don’t meet the goals that we set for ourselves that can and will probably be a basis for future criticism — but then again, THAT’S WHAT MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE ARE FOR!!!!!! Indeed, if the military is not meeting the goals that it sets for itself it better start criticzing itself and start asking why. But even more importantly, the American people get to ask why and demand answers. This country remains a democracy — even in wartime, in case you forgot — and the military is spending our money over there at the tune of billions of dollars a month — not to mention the American lives that are on the line everyday that we have no way of measuring our true progress.
But let me also ask why you automatically presume that the military won’t meet its goals. Remeber, you’re the only one making the argument that they won’t. I happen to think that timelines and timetables are a good thing because they tend to improve performance, increase efficiency, increase motivation and reinforce confidence and teamwork. If the military announces its goals and then meets them, damn what a PR coup that would be. Then the president could stand up and say we’ve met this specific goal, this specific goal and this specific goal. Here’s the timeline and here’s the proof. At present, since no goals have been set how is anyone supposed to measure the progress everyone keeps talking about? Timetables are good things. You have to deny all of these things because apparently a little civilian criticism is too much for the military to handle. Give me a break. You know what’s worse than a little criticism? A fuzzy, open ended strategy with no concrete measures of performance in which no one knows whether they are moving forward, moving back or standing still.
And why are so hung up on arbitrary deadlines? Why do these deadlines have to be so arbitrary? Surely the Pentagon has some research on troop training and readiness it could look at to shape any timetable it creates. And if indeed you are hung up arbitrariness, tell me why the Iraqis are having an election on Dec 15? What was the rock solid empirical reasoning behind that particular date? The whole democratic process in Iraq has been based on arbitrary deadlines. Gimme a break.
There is absolutely no reasonable, logical argument for not announcing a clear and reasonable timetable that we set for ourselves.
Go back and read what I wrote. I didn’t say the military commanders don’t have timetables. I said they most likely do have them.
Oh, crap…you’re on to me. Seriously, though…you can continue to spout your analysis of military tactics as long as you want. There will be no public timetables for the military announced by the US (unless it becomes militarily advantageous). If the Iraqis choose to set public timetables, then that is their right and we have an obligation to follow them.
Um…what are they going to do…have a “pop” election and surprise everyone?
“Um& what are they going to do& have a pop election and surprise
everyone?”
We’ll skip the fact that you misunderstood my point here entirely (I was talking about announcing election dates, I was saying the dates themselves were arbitrarily choosen) and go on to the other fact that your response actually proves my point. Yes, we announced election dates, the insurgency tried to disrupt them and they failed. Why? Because we cranked up security and locked down the country around those dates. But now you’re saying that doing the exact same thing with regard to announcing a general timetable for troop readiness would somehow undermine our whole endeavor. That doesn’t make any sense. Especially given that troop training doesn’t occur all on one day or in locations accessible to the general public. Announce that we are aiming to have x number of Iraqi battalians ready to go by March 2006. What could the insurgents do about it
that aren’t already doing right now, everyday, that is killing Iraqi and US soldiers? Are they going to step up their attacks on occupation forces as March 2006 nears? And we’re restrained from responding accordingly why?
BUt you may be less concerned with insurgents disrupting our training camps than you are with their “waiting it out” until we leave. Which is itself, horseshit.
If we announce a general timetable for withdrawl based on the expected training of Iraqi troops, what exactly will the insurgents be waiting out? I presume that we will be leaving Iraq sometime right? I also presume that when we leave, we will be leaving behind an armed and trained Iraqi army in our place. That’s the plan afterall, right? So, again, what exactly are the insurgents supposed to be waiting for? Our leaving shouldn’t matter because the Iraqis themselves will be prepared to deal with the situation. Your rationale makes no sense.
The only thing accomplished by keeping training and withdrawal plans secret is to cover the ass of this administration. That is a political calculation, not a military necessity.