Full Version: National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Today, President Bush, along with the National Security Council, unveiled 2.5+ years after the start of our invasion of Iraq the official National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
Excerpts from Bush's speech accompanying release of the report can be found on CNN here.
Questions for Debate:
1) Does this strategy comprise an effective plan for completing our engagement in Iraq? Why or Why not?
2) Does this strategy comply with the Senate's request for a specific plan and/or exit strategy regarding Iraq? Why or why not?
3) Does Bush's speech (and the report) introduce any new measures for an exit strategy for Iraq or is it simply a recycling of previous speeches in response to failing public opinion on our efforts there?
Note: There are other threads dealing with the timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. The focus of this topic is on the NSC strategy and Bush's speech that accompanied it. Please keep the commentary on the questions at hand.
Excerpts from Bush's speech accompanying release of the report can be found on CNN here.
Questions for Debate:
1) Does this strategy comprise an effective plan for completing our engagement in Iraq? Why or Why not?
2) Does this strategy comply with the Senate's request for a specific plan and/or exit strategy regarding Iraq? Why or why not?
3) Does Bush's speech (and the report) introduce any new measures for an exit strategy for Iraq or is it simply a recycling of previous speeches in response to failing public opinion on our efforts there?
Note: There are other threads dealing with the timetable for withdrawl from Iraq. The focus of this topic is on the NSC strategy and Bush's speech that accompanied it. Please keep the commentary on the questions at hand.
I'll start with my initial reactions after reading the links and having done a little research on this topic last night.
1) Does this strategy comprise an effective plan for completing our engagement in Iraq? Why or Why not?
No I do not think so. I think it is a clear statement of goals in Iraq which have been previously presented. I also think it is designed to leave the executive branch with a free hand in defining progress and leaving an open-ended mission by definition.
These are clearly presented goals.
2) Does this strategy comply with the Senate's request for a specific plan and/or exit strategy regarding Iraq? Why or why not?
I am uncertain as to the Senate request.
3) Does Bush's speech (and the report) introduce any new measures for an exit strategy for Iraq or is it simply a recycling of previous speeches in response to failing public opinion on our efforts there?
This is a recycling of previous messages. I think it is important for these goals to be revisited and measured. It is a bit of a progress report but it is mostly rhetoric and a request that the executive branch be left free to define the terms of the remaining engagement in Iraq. There is little in here to entirely disagree with so I think it is a pep speech to stop the growth of opinion against the policies of the United States in Iraq to date.
As a bit of an aside, I think that whatever the terminology that will be used, victory, timetable, exit strategy, center of the global war on terror, that the mission in Iraq is on the clock. Progress is being demanded and I think that demand is the best thing going. It will pressure the politicians in Washington, push for honest assessments of the military situation in Iraq (at least privately) from our generals, and pressure the aspiring leadership of Iraq to get serious about sovereignty in their country.
1) Does this strategy comprise an effective plan for completing our engagement in Iraq? Why or Why not?
No I do not think so. I think it is a clear statement of goals in Iraq which have been previously presented. I also think it is designed to leave the executive branch with a free hand in defining progress and leaving an open-ended mission by definition.
These are clearly presented goals.
2) Does this strategy comply with the Senate's request for a specific plan and/or exit strategy regarding Iraq? Why or why not?
I am uncertain as to the Senate request.
3) Does Bush's speech (and the report) introduce any new measures for an exit strategy for Iraq or is it simply a recycling of previous speeches in response to failing public opinion on our efforts there?
This is a recycling of previous messages. I think it is important for these goals to be revisited and measured. It is a bit of a progress report but it is mostly rhetoric and a request that the executive branch be left free to define the terms of the remaining engagement in Iraq. There is little in here to entirely disagree with so I think it is a pep speech to stop the growth of opinion against the policies of the United States in Iraq to date.
As a bit of an aside, I think that whatever the terminology that will be used, victory, timetable, exit strategy, center of the global war on terror, that the mission in Iraq is on the clock. Progress is being demanded and I think that demand is the best thing going. It will pressure the politicians in Washington, push for honest assessments of the military situation in Iraq (at least privately) from our generals, and pressure the aspiring leadership of Iraq to get serious about sovereignty in their country.
Questions for Debate:
1) Does this strategy comprise an effective plan for completing our engagement in Iraq? Why or Why not?
Yes and it is the same plan, as I understood it, that we had from day one. IMO the Democrats pretending they did not know this are ridiculous. Can anyone believe that in the preparation for the war that this was not discussed with the members of BOTH parties and they subsequently voted to go forward? IMO this is the Democrats attempting to gain a political advantage by playing dumb. Washington politics at its worst.
2) Does this strategy comply with the Senate's request for a specific plan and/or exit strategy regarding Iraq? Why or why not?
See above. The only thing missing would be the exact timing based on the current situation and that should never ever be made public.
3) Does Bush's speech (and the report) introduce any new measures for an exit strategy for Iraq or is it simply a recycling of previous speeches in response to failing public opinion on our efforts there?
Simply stating the plan again. As a people we seem to be more video game oriented. If we can’t do it all in a year or two with no casualties many people are unhappy. No one likes war but realistically nothing of the magnitude of the job in Iraq could ever be completed quickly.
1) Does this strategy comprise an effective plan for completing our engagement in Iraq? Why or Why not?
Yes and it is the same plan, as I understood it, that we had from day one. IMO the Democrats pretending they did not know this are ridiculous. Can anyone believe that in the preparation for the war that this was not discussed with the members of BOTH parties and they subsequently voted to go forward? IMO this is the Democrats attempting to gain a political advantage by playing dumb. Washington politics at its worst.
2) Does this strategy comply with the Senate's request for a specific plan and/or exit strategy regarding Iraq? Why or why not?
See above. The only thing missing would be the exact timing based on the current situation and that should never ever be made public.
3) Does Bush's speech (and the report) introduce any new measures for an exit strategy for Iraq or is it simply a recycling of previous speeches in response to failing public opinion on our efforts there?
Simply stating the plan again. As a people we seem to be more video game oriented. If we can’t do it all in a year or two with no casualties many people are unhappy. No one likes war but realistically nothing of the magnitude of the job in Iraq could ever be completed quickly.
QUOTE(Ted)
Yes and it is the same plan, as I understood it, that we had from day one. IMO the Democrats pretending they did not know this are ridiculous. Can anyone believe that in the preparation for the war that this was not discussed with the members of BOTH parties and they subsequently voted to go forward? IMO this is the Democrats attempting to gain a political advantage by playing dumb. Washington politics at its worst.
Well yes I agree it is the same plan...and those who really pay attention and have in fact done their own efforts to know what the plan is will know this. And I even agree that for the democrats to pretend they did not know this is silly and is a game to gain a political advantage. It is their jobs to know this...they should have to do a wee bit of investigation from their own sources then just waiting to be fed by the president every time.
But....The president has been such a poor articulator and campaigner for this war it really is as much his own fault as anyone else. The Democrats can all claim there is no plan because that is how it often appears to many. Did you read Kerry's response after the speech? Many democrats even go so far as to claim there not only is no plan but Bush has no clue. And Kerry and et al. can say this and many Americans will believe it because that is how Bush has sold this war.
Everyone around here complains about propaganda from the current admin over this war..and I have no idea why. The admin's propaganda is so poor and ineffective. It is the opposition who is far more successful at the propagandizing of this war in order to rally support.
I was relieved that the admin did not give into political demands to arbitrarily set some line in the sand. I think for the most part it would be disingenuous to do so and only an act of political staging. I think it is very important that the American people know that the war in Iraq will not end with a countdown with a big crystal ball and banners and revelers. The Bush admin has no one to blame but again themselves for the publics expectations of such a well defined end to this war as they have used this kind imagery in the past.
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec 3 2005, 10:41 AM)
QUOTE(Ted)
Yes and it is the same plan, as I understood it, that we had from day one. IMO the Democrats pretending they did not know this are ridiculous. Can anyone believe that in the preparation for the war that this was not discussed with the members of BOTH parties and they subsequently voted to go forward? IMO this is the Democrats attempting to gain a political advantage by playing dumb. Washington politics at its worst.
Well yes I agree it is the same plan...and those who really pay attention and have in fact done their own efforts to know what the plan is will know this. And I even agree that for the democrats to pretend they did not know this is silly and is a game to gain a political advantage. It is their jobs to know this...they should have to do a wee bit of investigation from their own sources then just waiting to be fed by the president every time.
But....The president has been such a poor articulator and campaigner for this war it really is as much his own fault as anyone else. The Democrats can all claim there is no plan because that is how it often appears to many. Did you read Kerry's response after the speech? Many democrats even go so far as to claim there not only is no plan but Bush has no clue. And Kerry and et al. can say this and many Americans will believe it because that is how Bush has sold this war.
Everyone around here complains about propaganda from the current admin over this war..and I have no idea why. The admin's propaganda is so poor and ineffective. It is the opposition who is far more successful at the propagandizing of this war in order to rally support.
I was relieved that the admin did not give into political demands to arbitrarily set some line in the sand. I think for the most part it would be disingenuous to do so and only an act of political staging. I think it is very important that the American people know that the war in Iraq will not end with a countdown with a big crystal ball and banners and revelers. The Bush admin has no one to blame but again themselves for the publics expectations of such a well defined end to this war as they have used this kind imagery in the past.
I think Ted had it exactly on the mark! The democrat talking points are totally pointless in anything less than an America where the press won't take their side. Replace the word Iraq with Korea after the same number of casualties and have the same debate... then think where Korea, Japan and the world would be today in governmets friendly towards America... This is a stupid question to question the execution of a war while the war is ongoing. Congress should have to sign a statement when they vote for war that they will stay the course until victory or you, the constitutants representated replace them in numbers large enough to change the course. Lack of support for an ongoing conflict can only be attributed to politic posturing and I for one don't think any soldier should die or be wounded for a rich lawyers gain. Let them say on a yes vote for war I have done my research and the yes vote is valid and if you dissagree fire me. Anything less is political posturing.
Well Bucket part of the reason for the “plan” being forgotten is the press. Some, of course, point out that what the President said was the plan that all signed up to from day one, but not many.
Most just report the Dems raving comments without asking the hard questions. As Tommy Franks said the other night – no war in history has ever gone “to plan”, and IMO the Democrats who are trying to use anything negative in Iraq (to the exclusion of positives) are just opportunists and fundamentally dishonest.
Yes Bush is not the best at articulating his points but he is HONEST and people like Teddy K are not.
It’s simply disgusting.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.