Rapid Response: Deconstructing “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”

[kpete]

Rapid Response: Deconstructing the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”
After two-and-a-half years and 2,110 U.S. fatalities, the Bush administration finally released a “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” (NSVI). The problem is, it’s not a new strategy for success in Iraq, it’s a public relations document. The strategy describes what has transpired in Iraq to date as a resounding success and stubbornly refuses to establish any standards for accountability. It dismisses serious problems such as the dramatic increase in bombings as “metrics that the terrorists and insurgents want the world to use.” Americans understand it’s time for a new course in Iraq. Unfortunately, this document is little more than an extended justification for a President “determined to stay his course.”

NO STANDARDS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY: Two weeks ago, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed an amendment calling on the Bush administration to provide a “schedule” for meeting U.S. objectives in Iraq, “information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.” The NSVI completely rejects this call. “We will not put a date certain on when each stage of success will be reached,” the document states in bold and italicized print, “because the timing of success depends upon meeting certain conditions, not arbitrary timetables.” The only time frames proposed for achieving U.S. objectives are virtually meaningless phrases: “short term,” “medium term,” and “longer term.” The goals for these time frames are equally ambiguous; the so-called “short term” goals, for instance, are listed as “making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milesmilestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.”

THE NATIONAL PAT ON THE BACK: The NSIV is less of a strategy and more of a pat on the back. Much of the 35 pages is devoted to describing how well things are going. Oddly, the strategy declares on Page 5 that “Our Strategy Is Working.” On the economic front we are told, “Our restore, reform, build, strategy is achieving results.” On the political front: “Our Isolate, Engage, and Build strategy is working.” On the security front: “Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working.” With everything going so well, the NSVI reminds us that “change is coming to the region…From Kuwait to Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, there are stirrings of political pluralism, often for the first time in generations.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/30/deconstructing-iraq-strategy/

[sinkingfeeling]

1. I loved the '8 Pillars' thingy.. all I know is that if I had prepared a

strategy report like 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq' while working as a service planner, I would have been fired! One of my projects was to develop a strategy for increasing service revenue at a time of reduced service contract pricing (due to more reliability of components) and how we were going to maintain revenue. We had to start with projections of our costs, sales and contract revenue for five years into the future. We had to justify all estimates. We then set out to make proposals for service changes and expansions to compensate for declining contract prices. It was details and specifics, not some simplified cliches.

As the article above points out, this thing is not a strategy document. We are truly being 'governed' by people with childish minds and ineptitude.

[pushycat]

2. Has K Hughes written all thru it - full of meaningless memes

This document is just another WASTE of tax dollars. Congress' requests for a schedule is ignored as Karen argues for 35 pages what she thinks is important to do. It would be laughable if this weren't for real.