Bush non-strategy for continuing the war in Iraq
by Matt Giwer, © 2005 [Oct 30]

Here is part of the Bush bullshit that came out today. I have added a few comments.

The first thing to notice is that it is not plan. It is a set of goals. There is not one word about how to achieve these goals. Terms link "work with" are not a plan. A plan include how.

The second thing is to notice is each section leads with the meaningless rhetoric of Bush over the years. 74% of Americans have heard those words and found them worthless.

National strategy for victory in Iraq
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 2005

The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining.

"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." President George W. Bush, February 26, 2003

That reads like until women have at least the rights they had under Hussein which were lost immediately after the invasion. This is written by a woman in Iraq. You can also read about it in the non-US press if you take the time.

But notice the date of the quote from two months before the war, "Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations". It was already known at that time it would only be the US under the Colin Powell "you broke it, you bought it" rule. What rational country would pay for what the US broke? Any day now Bush is going to publicly blame the lack of assistance from other countries. But this time he will forget Poland.

You have to love executive summaries. They are all anyone is supposed the read. The rest is to make a document that says nothing look thick enough to appear impressive. This is also the place to lose contact with reality in the certain knowledge no one will read the rest of it.

Executive Summary

OUR NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ:

Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

Steady progress is defined as 750 men able to fight on their own after 18 months of training. So it is clear the short term is much longer than 18 months. That is not what most of us consider short term.

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.

Some time in the future, much longer than 18 months away, Iraq will begin not to need a hundred and fifty thousand occupation troops. Of course the resistance movement has gotten stronger with time so we assume some time between now and the distant future medium term the resistance movement will become weaker for some unknown reason.

Iraq will be on its way to achieving its economic potential in this distant future and some time between now and then it will get back to its prewar economic potential. Will that be a short or medium term accomplishment?

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. Victory in Iraq is a vital U.S. Interest

Far, far in the future in a land way, way distant from here, Iraq will be as peaceful, united, and stable as it was under Hussein before the US ended its security.

Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow.

Iraq may be that today but everyone but the Bush propagandists see Iraq as a center of resistance for the liberation of Iraq and expulsion of foreign troops. As everyone knows by now, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the invasion.

The fate of the greater Middle East which will have a profound and lasting impact on American security hangs in the balance.

Failure is Not an Option
Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies. Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region a historic opportunity lost.

People can plan attacks against American in Times Square in New York City and in Peoria. It takes a very low grade mind to single out a country four thousand miles away.

The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region.

The Enemy Is Diffuse and Sophisticated
The enemy is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Distinct but integrated strategies are required to defeat each element.

Strange to read there is not one Iraqi who is in violent opposition to the foreign troops who have murdered members of their families, tribes and sectarian groups. One has to ask why, among all the peoples of the world, Iraqis are the only people who do not resist foreign troops in their country. But this is the President of the United States and he has a firm grasp upon reality. It is simply not the same reality as the rest of us.

Each element shares a common short-term objective to intimidate, terrorize, and tear down but has separate and incompatible long-term goals.

Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy. Our Strategy for Victory is Clear

But none have the objective of getting rid of foreign troops. What strange people the Iraqis are.

The closest it comes to saying what victory is, without calling it victory, it get back to the Hussein era with a constitution.

We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we are pursuing an integrated strategy along three broad tracks, which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.

Let me get this straight. Iraqis are expected to want a constitutional government when countries like Germany and England get along quite well without them. Iraqis are supposed to want individual civil rights when for thousands of years their only interest has been in family and clan rights.

And above all Iraq is to have sufficient security forces to change Iraq from the safe haven for terrorists it is today. And these are the same security forces which have been arresting Sunnis who are later found dead.

The UN left over two years ago when its HQ was bombed out while under US protection and there is no suggestion it will return. As for the international community the few backwater countries which were there in the beginning are leaving and no one is volunteering to join in. What is the point of basing a strategy upon what does not exist and has no chance of coming into existence?

The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government: Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq; Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq's full integration into the international community.

This sounds much like Iraqi troops in the US working to forge an Iraqi style society in America. I can't see why it would be considered any different by Iraqis if for no other reason than Americans are foreigners.

There is more but the bottom line is he wants to repeat the plan for victory in Vietnam.

Insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different result.

Page reads: 21850