Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: Getting Strategy Right

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default NCA Guidance

    The 2002 Iraq AUMF.pdf (attached) is long on "Whereases" and short on guidance for the use of military force:

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
    This is the controlling policy statement for Operation Iraqi Freedom (passed by Congress and approved by Pres. Bush).

    Of Bush Admin members, John Bolton is the only one I've seen on record (from March 2007) who asserts he espoused an "invade and leave" policy - see my post, Backgrounder.

    3/25[/2007]
    BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman
    .....
    Iraq 4 Years On: A Neo-con Rethink?
    ....
    Q. Is there not an American responsibility, having invaded a country, dismantled all the apparatus of government, to ensure the citizens of that country are not murdered?

    A. I think it's the responsibility which we've tried to fulfill to turn it back over to the Iraqis... We made a mistake in hindsight not turning it over to them earlier.
    ....
    But we don't have a responsibility to make the government of Iraq succeed, that's their responsibility.

    Q. Do you have a responsibility to keep the peace or not?

    A. I think that's their responsibility too. I think we're all agreed the sooner the Iraqis can decide whether they're gonna do that or not the the better off everyone is.

    Q. You sound as if you're washing your hands of the whole affair?
    ...
    A. What I would have done differently is much earlier, much sooner after the overthrow, given it back to the Iraqis, and I'll exaggerate for effect here, but given them a copy of the Federalist Papers and said good luck.
    Any others known to our readers, please advise.

    My earlier question, Question on "invade & leave", was generated in part by a comment from one Bill Moore in his post, This will stir debate:

    Perhaps I'm bias[ed], but I sensed we could have won this war rather quickly if we were more realistic. The Iraqi people I talked to were expecting the invasion for years, and they wondered what took us so long. They wanted us to replace Saddam and then leave.
    So, in the case of Iraq, unrealistric (actually non-existent) policy guidance - other than reference to enforcement of the UN Resolutions.

    These posts are from Iraq: Pre-War Planning, a thread started in 2006 by Jedburgh. The first reference was to the New State Department Releases on the "Future of Iraq" Project:

    Less than one month after the September 11 attacks, the State Department in October 2001 began planning the post-Saddam Hussein transition in Iraq. Under the direction of former State official Thomas S. Warrick, the Department organized over 200 Iraqi engineers, lawyers, businesspeople, doctors and other experts into 17 working groups to strategize on topics including the following: public health and humanitarian needs, transparency and anti-corruption, oil and energy, defense policy and institutions, transitional justice, democratic principles and procedures, local government, civil society capacity building, education, free media, water, agriculture and environment and economy and infrastructure.

    Thirty-three total meetings were held primarily in Washington from July 2002 through early April 2003. As part of the internal bureaucratic battle for control over Iraq policy within the Bush administration, the Department of Defense's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), itself replaced by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in May 2003, would ultimately assume responsibility for post-war planning in accordance with National Security Presidential Directive 24 signed on January 20, 2003. According to some press accounts, the Defense Department largely ignored the report, although DOD officials deny that.

    The result of the project was a 1,200-page 13-volume report that contains a multitude of facts, strategies, predictions and warnings about a diverse range of complex and potentially explosive issues, some of which have since developed as the report's authors anticipated...
    Of course, you can have contingency studies and plans up the DoS and DoD kazoos; but those ain't one iota of policy guidance from the NCA.

    Regards

    Mike
    Attached Files Attached Files

Similar Threads

  1. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  2. Indirect and Direct components to strategy for the Long War
    By Rob Thornton in forum Strategic Compression
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-06-2009, 11:36 PM
  3. Michele Flournoy on strategy
    By John T. Fishel in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-24-2008, 01:29 PM
  4. Towards a Theory of Applied Strategy in Tribal Society
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-23-2008, 01:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •