Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
Every day the lower enlisted ranks are being asked some very hard questions about intentions and policy, by the Iraqis themselves, and it is assured that if we don't have a unified message at the top, the bottom will not all be singing the same tune. That can't be good for anyone when you are getting Message A in Baghdad but your brother-in-law is getting Plan B in Ramadi. In essence this is exactly what is happening.
And the situation is exacerbated by the global media as well, so it's not only what is said in Baghdad and Ramadi, but also New York, Washington and London. I do have to agree with Horatius' original point that there isn't a coherent message; at least one that isn't 99% rhetoric . I think we saw a slightly different situation in Afghanistan, although the behind the scenes maneuverings to stop the restoration of the monarchy in the 2003 Loya Jurga made that questionable. The "message" needs to be spelled out in a series of "We are here to do X" and "We will know that X is done when Y happens".

On a related note, is anyone collating the questions that are asked about intentions and policies? There was a tactic worked out in the late 1970's for elections where these questions would be funneled to a local office and, if they matched prepared policy statements, copies of those statements would be hand delivered the next day. If there wasn't such a statement, the person who received the question would still go back the next day and say something like "We take your question seriously and it has been sent off to our policy committee to try and get an answer for you". Even when there was no policy and no one wanted to make one, within the week the person would be contacted again and told that no such policy can be developed until X, Y or Z happens. It strikes me that his type of tactic would work equally well in raq.

Marc