Centerfield

Well, I have to say that it's at least nice to see the President's team putting something down on paper that is organized and seemingly well thought-out.

However, having said that, I am a bit disturbed that the plan seems to cover up our own shortcomings and some logical fallacies with flowery prose about freedom and democracy and rule of law.

First, in describing America's enemies in Iraq, the paper splits them into three groups: "rejectionists", "Saddamists", and international terrorists.

My biggest problem is the definition of the rejectionists. According to the paper, rejectionists are those who have not yet adapted to the transition from a brutal Ba'ath Party regime to the free democratic society which we are supposedly creating.

I would suspect that a more accurate (and honest) description is that these are people who are outraged at being occupied by a massive foreign power that talks a big game about self-determination and human rights, but is actually paternalistically writing the government's constitution for them and abusing prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib.

That doesn't change the fact that they are our enemies in an effort to turn Iraq into a liberal democratic state; but the paper suggests that if we just keep working at it, keep tinkering with their government, that most of these rebels, er, rejectionists, will come around. In other words, they hate freedom, but they might just come around.

I think this mindset underestimates the continuing threat that people fighting us to leave pose, and also encourages us to continue down a path that swells their ranks. The rejectionists would stop fighting the moment that we are out of there, and I would imagine that they are the largest group.

The Saddamists: Yeah, to the extent that any of the people fighting us are actively fighting for the return of the old order, we've got to keep fighting them.

The terrorists: I have no doubt that there are some terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq, but I think that the paper greatly overstates their strength. You don't need many terrorists, it turns out, to make car bombs.

The central point of our Iraq "strategy" is that if we pull out now, we surrender Iraq to the terrorists, and it will become a base for terrorist plotters, just as Afghanistan under the Taliban. I think that is nonsense. Iraq wasn't a terrorist base under Saddam Hussein, and I don't see any reason for that to change. Many people in Iraq undoubtedly support Al Qaeda terrorists in that their interests overlap: the removal and defeat of American occupation forces from Iraq. I doubt that the people would have much tolerance for the terror groups after they have Iraq to themselves.

We need to ensure that before we leave that Iraq has a government that is not going to easily fall to ethnic fighting, but believing that once we leave a Taliban or, even more fancifully, an Al Qaeda regime is going to rush in to take our place is a lunatic fantasy, and I don't think we should commit our standing army and foreign policy to it. I think our plan should be to stay through elections, train up a decently sized Iraqi internal security force, and get the hell out. Keep a small detachment of forces in our bases in Turkey in case they are needed. But fighting the rebels, the Saddamists, and "the terrorists" in the long term with an eye toward eradicating them is a war of attrition we cannot win.

...especially those of you quick to point out your dislike of the Commander in Chief without providing much in the way of a substantive argument...

Do you think it might be possible to put strawman statements like this aside for the cause of elevating debate? I'm not sure who the "you" you refer to are supposed to be, but certainly not anyone on this site. You're not going to form a "Coalition" of centrists by alienating those you disagree with with cheap shots.

Now. That being said. I'd like to say, upon my quick summary of this document that this is an ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC demonstration of progress in the debate over Iraq. Politically, Bush has preempted the legislature both parties intend to submit to Congress; thereby taking control of the debate. It's a proactive maneuver that will define the terms of the debate and put everyone else on the defense.

As for the merits of the document... I'm going to need a week to read and re-read it to determine where I stand on that. On quick read, I'm a little bothered by what I see a flowery language and lack of specifics on what lies ahead. On the other hand, it's definitions of what has been achieved are a moral booster.

Let the fireworks fly?

They'll fly no matter what we say, Ryan. But it's nice to have the program summarized yet again by the White House.

Baldilocks has summed it all up pretty well.

I think what is missing is more information about the military operations. It gave references for improvements in the economy and infrastructure are collected weekly by the State Department and USAID. These are the most important however I believe a majority of the people are more concerned about what our troops are doing.

I would like to see an overview of operation “Steel Curtain” for example. I get some information from the milblogs but not enough people read them. I would like to see more information on what was accomplished and how it was done. I think this kind of information would be better to ease people’s fears at home. Nothing on future operations, or tactical level information that could endanger our troops, but a strategic review of the operations which have been conducted.

No argument, Bernie, but there's a limit to how much "fresh" military info will be offered, for obvious reasons.

Ryan,

I think my statement is fair. I am not going to call anyone out, but I think their is a fair amount of individuals, although more rare on this blog than anywhere else, that attack Bush no matter what he does without putting any thought into what he is actually proposing. If you want an example of what I am talking about, go to the Daily Kos.

Horrible writing in that last comment... Sorry 'bout that.

Probably influenced by the horrible writing in my own comment. ("legislation" vice "legislature", etc.) : )

I read the “Victory in Iraq” link. Looks more like a summary of the administrations current talking points than a strategy. I've seen a lot of DOD documents like this. Their purpose is political not substantive.

Kind of reminds me of a corporate mission statement .
Dilbert has a link that automatically generates them.

I think my statement is fair. I am not going to call anyone out, but I think their is a fair amount of individuals, although more rare on this blog than anywhere else, that attack Bush no matter what he does without putting any thought into what he is actually proposing. If you want an example of what I am talking about, go to the Daily Kos.

And lots of other people support Bush no matter what he does. So what?

I certainly don't put you in that category -- but I also note this blog post consisted of nothing but a link to a document that you haven't read and an attack on unnamed people who dislike Bush for failing to use substantive arguments.

Bob's right. The motives here are political. That doesn't really bother me, because I've been calling for this for some time now. I want our effort to democratize Iraq to succeed because the dominos will fall one way or the other in the middle east, and things will go better for self-determination and modern human rights if we succeed.

Bush has previously failed to take requisite responsibility for fighting the PR component of this battle. He's the President of a democracy, so what the people think matters. This is his gambit, and he's got the bully pulpit. It's disappointed me that he has left this stage to others so much. The Rose Garden strategy has not been helpful, IMO. I understand his reluctance, as this role does not play to his strongest skills. But if he really wants the effort to succeed, he has no choice, he has to take on this role, because he's the freaking President. It's his job to lead. It troubles me that it has taken so long for this lightbulb to go on, but better late than never.

I'd like to reiterate that I think we are at the beginning of by far the most sensitive stage of this risky effort, as we try to scale back our involvement and cede more autonomy to the Iraqi government and security forces. Change means opportunism.The self-interested of all stripes ruishb in to take what they want or what they declare to be rightfully theirs.

What Americans need now is to understand this, so that they will be patient and not panic. From the beginning I've always viewed this effort as a gambit, a choice to take one of several possible imperfect and risky paths. From the beginning, I'e always thought "this may well not work out." Other paths that were once options are no longer feasible, and we'll never know how rewarding they'd have been. Right now, the die has to a large extent been cast with this gambit. Let's all acknowledge that it may still not work out, but even so hope that it does, and do what we can to help make that so.

What Brian said.

I like bk's comments on this.

Bob;

Kind of reminds me of a corporate mission statement.