Victory In Iraq

[Diamond Cross]

There is a strategy for Iraq. The document is called National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, but was published on November 30th, 2005.

Table of Contents:

Part 1, Strategic Overview:

• Victory in Iraq Defined
• Victory in Iraq is a Vital U.S. Interest
• The Benefits of Victory in Iraq
• The Consequences of Failure
• Our Enemies and Their Goals
• The Strategy of Our Enemies
• Our Strategy for Victory is Clear
  A. The Political Track (Isolate, Engage, Build)
  B. The Security Track (Clear, Hold, Build)
  C. The Economic Track (Restore, Reform, Build)
• This Strategy is Integrated, and its Elements are Mutually Reinforcing
• Victory Will Take Time
• Why Our Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions-Based
• Our Strategy Tracks and Measures Progress

Part 2, Strategy In Detail

• The Political Track in Detail
• The Security Track in Detail
• The Economic Track in detail
• Organization for Victory

The link:
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq


You can also view it as a 385kb PDF document.

[avsp]

In general I especially like the lower priority aims & benefits of success, ..., & especially the 'consequences of failure' bits

Further, I like the repeated mentioning of 'this will take time', ..., although it should also say 'this is going to mean the deaths of many coalition troops'

Why all this wasnt/hasnt been effectively communicated to the public at large remains a mystery to me

But not as big a mystery as omitting the fact that the forces would need to be much larger to stand any chance of working, ..., probably 3 times the size.

Its the failure to 'stay & hold' after 'clearing' areas that has meant it hasnt worked. The attitude of the coalition forces to their task hasnt helped either IMO, but then the dissembling of their political leaders & the failure to adequately train & reinforce them for the task probably made this inevitable.

ALL THIS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY TRAIN &, REINFORCE RHE TROOPS & TO ADEQUATELY EDUCATE THE PUBLIC IS ENTIRELY DONALD RUMSFELDS (& cronies) FAULT. The American electorate should be throughly ashamed that they voted him back in as these failings were obvious even back then.

[Donkey®]

Is that the document Bremmer wrote that Bush ignored?

[Diamond Cross]

I'm not certain.

Probably is though.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by avsp

In general I especially like the lower priority aims & benefits of success, ..., & especially the 'consequences of failure' bits

Further the repeated mentioing of 'this will take time' is mentioned, ..., although i feel it should also say 'this is going to mean a lot of deaths amongst coalition forces'

Why all this wasnt/hasnt been effectively communicated to the public at large remains a mystery to me

But not as big a one as omotting the fact that the forces would need to be much larger to stand any chance of working, ..., probably 3 times the size.

Its the failure to 'stay & hold' after 'clearing' areas that has meant it hasnt worked. The attitude of the coalition forces to their task hasnt helped either IMO, but then the dissembling og their political leaders & the failure to adequately train & reinforce them for the task probably made this inevitable.

ALL THIS FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY TRAIN, REINFORCE & EDUCATE THE PUBLIC IS ENTIRELY DONALD RUMSFELDS (& cronies) FAULT. The American electorate should be throughly ashamed that they voted him back in as these failings were obvious even back then.

Three times the size? That's really astonishing -- an order of magnitude greater than I had thought.

[SICKGUY]

there is no way we can get out of iraq without the whole mess being viewed as a failure. our best bet is to hand it over, and hope the new iraqi government can make something happen.

im actually a pretty optimistic guy, its just that there is nothing to be optimistic about with iraq