« The Party of Defeat | Main | Getting Chilly at Walter Reed »

December 6, 2005

Yes we have a Strategy and Yes we are Winning

Of the many Iraq war fallacies that we hear from the naysayers is that we have no plan, no strategy.

Of course we have one. All you have to do is listen. But then, I've noticed that the same people who say we have no strategy are the ones who claim that President Bush "insinuated" that Saddam knew about or helped plan 9/11, when no one else has such a recollection.

For anyone who has not been paying attention these past few years, the White House released the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

What is "Strategy"?

Properly understood, strategy refers to a plan for applying scarce means to achieve the nation’s goals.

Mackubin Thomas Owens, writing on NRO, summarizes the definition of "Strategy" as follows:

First, strategy relates ends, the goals of policy (interests and objectives) to the limited resources available to achieve them against an adversary who actively opposes the achievement of the ends.

Second, strategy contributes to the clarification of the ends of policy by helping establish priorities in light of constrained resources. Without establishing priorities among competing ends, all interests and all threats will appear equal. In the absence of strategy, planners will find themselves in the situation described by Frederick the Great: “He who attempts to defend too much defends nothing.”

Finally, strategy conceptualizes resources as means in support of policy. Resources are not means until strategy provides some understanding of how they will be organized and employed.

The Nineteenth-Century military theorist Carl von Clausewitz offered this clarification

The activities characteristic of war may be separated into two categories; that which are mainly preparation for war, and war proper.

What Clausewitz meant is that it is one thing to raise, train, and equip an army, quite another to win a war with it. All the best weaponry in the world is so much useless junk unless it is properly employed. Further, war is about much more than fighing. One must take into account the social, political, economic, and psychological aspects of it as well.

Back to Owens on NRO:

All too often, strategies do a fine job of describing the goal but don’t address the plan to achieve the goals. But this is the essence of strategy: How do we apply scarce resources in the most effective way to bring about our desired end? If the president’s Iraq strategy left this out, it would be a serious omission. But this is not the case. The document lays out three interconnected tracks that describe the “how” of the U.S. approach in Iraq. These tracks incorporate “eight pillars,” or strategic objectives:

* Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency
* Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance
* Help Iraqis Form a National Compact for Democratic Government
* Help Iraq Build Government Capacity and Provide Essential Services
* Help Iraq Strengthen its Economy
* Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights
* Increase International Support for Iraq
* Strengthen Public Understanding of Coalition Efforts and Public
* Isolation of the Insurgents

As sophisticated observers are always quick to point out, insurgencies are never won by military means alone. There must be a political track leading to a stable government. To bring about this outcome, the document calls for isolating the real enemy elements by driving a wedge between them and those who can be won over to the political process. The second component of the political track is to engage those outside the political process by inviting them to participate in the governing process if they are willing to turn away from violence Finally, the political track calls for building stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions capable of protecting the interests of all Iraqis, enabling Iraq to be fully integrated into the international community.

What gets me is that so may critics, from Pat Buchanan to John Kerry, pompously offer their "solutions" that are really little more than restatement of what the administration has been trying to do all along.

So Is It Working?

We are according to the people who ought to know; the troops fighting the war in Iraq. This article in the Christian Science Monitor discusses the "perception gap" between the soldiers in the field and (many) civilians in the US:

Like many soldiers and marines returning from Iraq, (Corporal)Mayer looks at the bleak portrayal of the war at home with perplexity - if not annoyance. It is a perception gap that has put the military and media at odds, as troops complain that the media care only about death tolls, while the media counter that their job is to look at the broader picture, not through the soda straw of troops' individual experiences.

The story goes on to relate the experiences of Corporal Mayer and his comrades, and how they befriended several Iraqis, including two 9 year old girls. Read the whole thing.

Max Boot, writing in the LA Times last month, also says that the war looks quite different when you talk to the soldiers about it:

American soldiers are also much more optimistic than American civilians. The Pew Research Center and the Council on Foreign Relations just released a survey of American elites that found that 64% of military officers are confident that we will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. The comparable figures for journalists and academics are 33% and 27%, respectively. Even more impressive than the Pew poll is the evidence of how our service members are voting with their feet. Although both the Army and the Marine Corps are having trouble attracting fresh recruits — no surprise, given the state of public opinion regarding Iraq — reenlistment rates continue to exceed expectations. Veterans are expressing their confidence in the war effort by signing up to continue fighting.

The economy in Iraq is doing pretty well, too, which is something you read absolutely nothing about in the media:

There are also positive economic indicators that receive little or no coverage in the Western media. For all the insurgents' attempts to sabotage the Iraqi economy, the Brookings Institution reports that per capita income has doubled since 2003 and is now 30% higher than it was before the war. Thanks primarily to the increase in oil prices, the Iraqi economy is projected to grow at a whopping 16.8% next year. According to Brookings' Iraq index, there are five times more cars on the streets than in Saddam Hussein's day, five times more telephone subscribers and 32 times more Internet users.

The growth of the independent media — a prerequisite of liberal democracy — is even more inspiring. Before 2003 there was not a single independent media outlet in Iraq. Today, Brookings reports, there are 44 commercial TV stations, 72 radio stations and more than 100 newspapers.

This past Saturday evening Fox News had an excellent one-hour special on Iraq in which they showed clips from popular Iraqi TV shows. It was amazing stuff. One show features the confessions of captured terrorists. The idea is that by having them tell their story on TV, about how they killed ordinary Iraqis and why they did it, will take away any "glamour" anyone sees in such activity.

No doubt, as Boot admits, there is a large terrorist problem in Iraq. No one denies this. Yet to portray all as lost is foolishness. Consider that

Since the Jan. 30 election, not a single Iraqi unit has crumbled in battle, according to Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who until September was in charge of their training. Iraqi soldiers are showing impressive determination in fighting the terrorists, notwithstanding the terrible casualties they have taken. Their increasing success is evident on "Route Irish," from Baghdad International Airport. Once the most dangerous road in Iraq, it is now one of the safest. The last coalition fatality there that was a result of enemy action occurred in March.

So yes we have a Strategy and Yes we are Winning.

But I've posted on that so much I can't begin to list all of the links. If you're interested just go to the right under "Categories" and choose "Iraq."

The Big Question

The question at this point is now if we're winning, for I think that anyone who is either not not hopelessly partisan or simply cannot see beyond the daily headline would have to conclude that trends are seriously our favor.

The question is whether we will be allowed to win. This is an issue because as I told you in the previous post the Democrats have become the Party of Defeat. They do not simply think we are losing, but by advocating that we pull out immediately they are advocating defeat.

Let's fight tooth and nail to see that doesn't happen. Too much is at stake.

Posted by Tom at December 6, 2005 8:55 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/533

Comments

None of the leftists seem uncapable of or are unwilling to connect the dots of terrorism. Although, all the dots do not necessarily originate in Saddam's Iraq, most seem to pass through it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (for the moment) apparently is what Saddam and his now deceased sons subscribed to.

There were so many intelligence reports from the Clintonista years that indicated that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and supported various terror cells in Iraq. The following is a list of terrorists who were adided or abetted by Saddam's Iraq: Abu Nida, Abu Abbas (former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front), Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Musab al Zarqawi (in and out of Iraq since the 1980s and now the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq), Ramzi Yousef. The list could go on of names and organizations that Saddam gave financial support, aid and comfort to. Naturally President Bush felt Saddam was a terrorist threat.

Remember, President Bush gave Saddam chances to cooperate with the international community. And, after months of negotiations with Saddam, UN inspectors, and liberals, Bush found no choice but to go to war.

Many Democrat/Liberal leaders are on the record talking about the existence of WMD’s and terror from the 1980s up until the invasion. But now that it’s politically advantageous, Liberals seem to have forgotten that they ever spoke of WMD’s and terror in the past. They are suffering from Democratic Selective Amnesia (DSA)

And, Joe Public who has not been able to research the tons of information available, relies on the MSM and politicians to get information. Unfortunately most MSM and politicians tilt the BS meter completely to the red zone.

For starters, I suggest that anyone interested should read:
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf

Now, be aware that you will find some BS buried just about any article and reference from time to time. We suffered intelligence paralysis for many years because we did not have enough "HUMINT."

Have a good day. Be safe, be diligent, and watch your six. Respectfully, Bos'un

Posted by: Bos'un at December 7, 2005 1:41 PM

And we are winning the war on terrorism. All we need is for the misguided leftists to shut up and let the military and intelligence services do their job. President Bush said it was not going to be easy when he committed our troops. The troops are in harms way and there is a war on. We need to unite instead of the leftists game plan of devide us.

Posted by: Bos'un at December 7, 2005 1:44 PM

Bos'un, I can see you have done your research.

Thank you for stopping by, and especially for the link to Deroy Murdock's article. I've followed his work at National Review and bookmarked much of his work.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at December 7, 2005 8:59 PM

Bush said from the beginning that when the Iraqis were able to stand on their own, our troops would leave. He's never wavered.

Posted by: Anna at December 7, 2005 10:42 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)