Topic: Political Rant

The new, much-heralded
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq reads much like a presentation outline or talking points. A lot of the document seems focused on attempting to justify why America is engaged in Iraq and explaining why we need to stay. Christopher F. Gelpi, co-author of research on American tolerance for casualties, shrewdly noted that "the Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."
The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq includes a lot of filler and optimistic repacking of what has been said before. However, the heart of the document is two pages focused on three basic concepts that will supposedly lead us to victory:
A. The Political Track (Isolate, Engage, Build). The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government.
B. The Security Track (Clear, Hold, Build).The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government.
C. The Economic Track (Restore, Reform, Build). The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government.
Oddly enough, even though I am working in Iraq, no one has encouraged me to read this document. I get the sense that it will only negligibly affect what happens out here. It will be interesting to see how, or even if, this document continues to influence the war as it slowly creeps into it third year.
And in other news . . . while recently visiting the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Secretary Don Rumsfeld said that "to be responsible, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks."
Posted by alohafromtim
at 11:28 PM EST
Updated: December 7, 2005 11:30 PM EST