Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatic Thinker View Post
Ken,
Could you expand on this a little? I am confused to what you're trying to say here?...
Well, very little. (but I can state that little at great length ). It sort of says it all. I think perhaps you're trying to read things into the statement. Sorry for the confusion.

...Are you saying the current administration is committed to finding an end to the war by creating a national-level strategy that ensures our troops are given focus and direction, thus doing those things that will bring the conflict in Iraq to an eventual end?...
No. Tackling those thoughts in reverse order; there is little we can do to bring the conflict in Iraq to an eventual end. Such end will be mostly up to the Iraqis and to a lesser extent up to us and in varying still lesser amounts (and in no particular order) to the Turks, the Syrians, the Saudis, the Iranians and various Islamist factions. All have a vote of varying clout. Giving the troops focus and direction in Iraq is not a strategic issue, it is an operational issue and thus the province of DoD and the Armed Forces.

I believe this Administration has committed to a strategy wherein the "end" of war in Iraq is only one part of an extensive global strategy that envisions a lengthy worldwide effort to reduce the threat of international terrorism to an acceptable level; Iraq thus is only one of many ongoing efforts -- it is merely the most visible. I further believe this Administration has done that in such a way as to preclude successors from easily disabling or diverting that strategy and I also believe that this strategy in in the national interest. I could quibble about a lot of the techniques and the direction of some efforts but it doesn't have to be my way to work...

If so, could you cite some examples of this strategy and how that is playing out in Iraq?...
The strategy IMO (obviously I have no clue to the content of discussions or to the decisions, just my inferences from open sources) is what put us in Iraq and it broad based, flexible and, with respect to Iraq in particular, is aimed at accelerating to emergence of the ME into the world mainstream among other things. That strategy generally does not dictate operational or tactical methodology but relies on the government agencies (to include DoD, the Intel Community, Treasury and others) to develop and employ proper and effective methods to conduct rather broad based missions world wide (and that is important). That is, also IMO, as it should be.

What is "playing out" in Iraq are the operational decisions of those agencies with respect to that particular operation as a part of that strategy. Properly, the Administration is not dictating operational parameters but is relying on the Agencies to do it right.

I think thus far in Iraq we have seen three distinct phases that have changed the character of our efforts. The first phase lasted about 18 months and was characterized by excessive concern with force protection and a great lack of knowledge of what to do and how to do it. In essence, the operators did not do it right and thus, they did not aid the overall strategy but instead introduced an inadvertent wrinkle.

The next 18 months or so consisted of a learning phase and a realization of the need (if not well executed efforts) to install a viable government and develop Iraqi internal defense capability. The most recent 18 months or so have seen a pretty good refinement of that and implementation of more effective tactic and techniques. Things there are going fairly well as nearly as I can determine. We'll see.

... Could you cite some examples of where GEN Patreaus and LTG Odierno have clearly articulated the "road to victory"?

Thanks, PT
No, I pay little to no attention to what the Generals (all of them, now and then, here and there) or politicians say. IMO, one can put little stock in the words of either and what they say is pretty predictable. I have, however, closely watched what they do. I do not think there is any such thing as a "road to victory" in Iraq and after our initial missteps in the spring of 2003, there never was...

I have complained here that the use of words like "win," "lose," "defeat" and "victory" in relation to any counterinsurgency effort is a terrible idea. "Shock and awe" was one of the most stupid phrases ever applied anywhere in any war. Words are important and the wrong words can send a message of unachievable goals or results and can build false expectations in all the actors -- and observers -- involved.

One cannot "win" a counterinsurgency war unless one kills all the insurgents and that obviously is not an option. The best one can do is achieve an acceptable outcome. That's the best anyone has achieved in the post WW II era (to include the Brits in Malaya and East Africa). My belief is that is probable in Iraq and fairly soon.

Having said all that, recall my original comment you quoted, "I believe the current Administration and the bulk of those who might form the next administration are in fact committed to the mission; thus the nation is both de facto and de jure committed to the mission. I realize there are those in the administration, in Congress, in the Armed Forces and across the nation who wish to not be committed to the mission but my guess is they will not have their wish granted because that would be inimical to the national interest and most people realize that...."

That simply meant that I think most people -- not all -- realize that precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would confirm what the opposition has long said in many of their tapes and videos they've released; confirmation of the fact that the US is the proverbial toothless tiger, has no staying power and is totally untrustworthy. It would also lend credence to their claim that we are assaulting Islam and have no altruistic motive and would almost certainly adversely impact other equally important elements of the strategy. In the very pragmatic ME, inability to perform leads to rejection in all aspects.

Most Americans realize on a visceral level that such a message is not wise and not in our national interest. I think that is a correct sensing on the part of most Americans.