CNN posts document: National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (pdf file)

Intro:

The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining.

“The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/11/30/iraq.strategy.pdf

too late? And I suspect "too little" as well because my guess is that this is a rehash of "same old same old". "Train the Eyerackies and when they are sufficiently trained we will go home but we have no idea as to when such an event might occur and in face we can't even say what indicators we will use to determine when the moment has arrived."

It didn't dawn on me till now, but didn't we try this same thing in Vietnam? I think it was called "Vietnamization of the war." We were supposed to kick Viet Cong butt until the South Vietnam military and political leaders were ready to take over. I believe we were suppose to gradually relinquish responsibility to the south Vietnamese. Of course, it never happened. And this won't, either.

I'm surprised this bogus argument for Imperialism is being used only 25-30 years later.

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

• Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

• Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

• Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.


“America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom and to make their own way.”
-President George W. Bush, January 2005

is that Iraq didn't even have terrorists prior to our invasion.

To be fair, there was a terrorist presence in Iraq before the invasion. One can argue that the war only made things worse, or that the terrorist threat wasn't profound enough (no collaborative link between Saddam and al-qaeda), but Saddam did have ties to Plaestinian suicide bombers.

I'm just saying that you can't say that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war.

While some kind of (at least verbal) support to some aspects of the intifada appear to be a necessary ingredient of arabic or islamic populism, I have not seen any documentation concerning significant material support by the Saddam regime during since the 1990s. I do not say there hasn't been any, just that the data appears to be rather inconclusive (if there is more solid data I would like to hear of it).

The one notable exception, and a pretty damning one for the Bush* League is Ansar al-Islam. As documented e.g. here, the one place in 2003 Iraq harbouring an allegedly veritabe center of internatioal terrorism was in an area within or bordering the Kurdish de facto independent regions and thus not under Saddam's control, but under the protection of the Pentagon and its local allies. If one subscribed to the point of view, that allowing a group like Ansar to run a training camp on ones territory is an offence worthy of a pre-emptive attack, the city to be shocked an awed would not turn out to be Baghdad, but Washington.

Because none of those things is happening. Nor will it in this generation/millenium.

if one listens to the catapaulted propaganda.

I mean, two weeks from now will bring that "fully constitutional government" into place, right?

And we heard from the Propagandist himself the other day that progress is afoot in Iraq and the terrorists are losing and the VP says they're in their last throes and some Generals say their back has been broken and....



:puke:

They summarize their talking points and call it an exit strategy. This is unbelievable.

I misspoke. It's a strategy for staying in Iraq forever.

...Remember, so long as geedubya bush has his hand in the proverbial jar (see Monkey Fable), with a firm grip on Iraqi oil reserves, no way he's gonna be able to let go. And since the only way to 'withdraw' from Iraq is to give up on that oil, he's stuck, and we're stuck, and the Iraqi's are stuck, and on, and on, and on, until we're all dead, I guess.

The only way to get them, and us, out of there is to show Republicans everywhere that so long as these people are in charge, not a single one of them will be returned to office...ZERO Republicans ever again...ever!

GE, Halliburton, et al.

There is nothing new here.

Do they actually think that repackaging the same bullshit and trying to sell it again works? Do they think that nobody in this country has a short term memory?

Or more to the point: what would it take for this bunch to come up with a NEW IDEA?

:argh:

The Plaid Adder

as most of my decisions

The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
(the A stands for Awesome)

proud you have deigned to lower yourself to our level.

At first I was told I was unwelcome, but as long as I keep my rabid right-wing ideas to myself (or on my blog), I think they'll let me stay.

The Right Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
(the A stands for Awesome)

good stuff! and welcome to DU:toast:

I really did, but I couldn't get past the utter vapidness of the document. Not only was it written at a 5th or 6th grade level, it appears to have been written by someone who should be on Ritalin. Talking point after talking point, nothing to offer. This puke makes me afraid to be living in this country anymore...

:puke:

what the savvy generals think about this.

And all I can think of is if my son were of age to be there - fighting for this refomed drunk's new Christian crusade.

We've gone over the falls. Hang on tight.

The more I read it, the worse it gets. This is fantasy.

I scrolled thru' the whole UNBELIEVABLE reams of crap and can't believe that people are PAID to write such absolute tripe. You know it's scary in a way that they have the nerve to put this crapola out there for us to read. Frankly it is inconceivable that even Rep. can
read it and not recognize it for the sheer bullshit that it is.

I may be wrong, but that seems like a made-up word.

And, I don't find this document funny in the slightest bit. This is downright scarey. It's 38 pages of Orwellian memes. Freaky shit.

"Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam’s
tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, ..." (p.5) <emphasis added>

What about Bremer's 100 orders?

"Before the US proconsul Paul Bremer left Baghdad, he enacted 100 orders as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq. Perhaps the most infamous was Order 39 which decreed that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised, that foreign companies could have complete control of Iraqi banks, factories and mines, and that these companies could transfer all of their profits out of Iraq. The “reconstruction” of the country amounts in effect to wholesale privatisation of the economy and is little short of economic colonisation."

Note: This is from a Times Online uk editorial by Michael Meacher. 8/22/05. Unfortunately, I saved it as an .mht file. Thus, no link. :blush:

> > > > > > >


I wish someone in the media had the brains and fortitude to hammer Snotty or the Pres. about the sovereignty issue. Oh, wait....guess we don't want to ask the Dimson to try to explain "sovereignty".

enough to ask and follow-up

'Pluralistic'...

This is really out there. Not even in Vietnam was our top executive so completely out of touch with the reality on the ground.

If you want to know what demoralizes the troops, this sort of fantasy role playing version of FDR that Bush is doing would be top on my list.

We squandered the new marshall plan money to Halliburton, CACI, KBR, etc. We are not drawing down the insurgency, nor are the Iraqi forces able to secure the Sunni triangle. Just like Nam, we can control the territory for short periods, and when we inevitably withdraw, it is taken back. What is next, strategic hamlets?

And the idea of Vietnamization or rather Iraqization of the war has already been shown as useless. How many Iraqi trainees have to be shot in ditches for Bush to figure this out? The answer is, he cannot, will not figure it out. He is doing Gods work, and he *believes* that he is chosen to save Iraq. I think he hasn't had a functioning marble since 911.

I think further, that after this pathetic speech, we need to declare him incapacitated, and impeach Cheney.


Here is the truth, bitter and big as a horse pill, Iraq lost whatever chance it ever had to remain one nation when we invaded it. Period.
Now our options are have our dick fully engaged when the knives come out, or to beg the UN to oversee its partition into three nations.

I posted this in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5487085&mesg_id=5487085

I do know that if I was on the ground in Iraq I would find this "NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR VICTORY IN IRAQ" report and Bush's truly awful speech this morning to be very demoralizing.

This is what criminal insanity looks like.

To the "progress" regarding the number of daily attacks in Iraq. One would think that might be an important statistic for measuring progress. Oh, wait, Jack Murtha provided that number for us the other day. In the last year the number of daily attacks have gone from 150 to 700. Oooooops...

There was no plan in the beginning, there's no plan now.

in·sur·gent (in-sûr?j?nt) adjective
Rising in revolt against civil authority or a government in power; rebellious.
noun
1. One that revolts against civil authority.
2. A member of a political party who rebels against its leadership.

I couldn't find an entry for REJECTIONIST but here's rejection:

re·jec·tion (ri-jek?sh?n) noun
1. The act of rejecting or the state of being rejected.
2. Something rejected.
3. Medicine. The failure of a recipient's body to accept a transplanted tissue or organ as the result of immunological incompatability; immunological resistance to foreign tissue.

yep they're rejecting America. Is it just getting through to them?

... then what the fuck was the 'Regime Change' bullshit all about in the first place ?

And the US Selected 'Constitutional Congress' or WTF-ever they called it ?

And the US paid 'candidates' like Allawi and Chalabi ?



:puke: :mad: :puke: :mad: :puke:

None of which would apply if the USA hadn't led an illegal invasion in the first place. As Tony Blair's foreign policy advisor pointed out:



And another section starts:



There's a superb blog showing how 'clear' Bush has been on the mission:

Bush's closest advisers have long been aware of the religious nature of his policy commitments. In recent interviews, one former senior official, who served in Bush's first term, spoke extensively about the connection between the President's religious faith and his view of the war in Iraq. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that "God put me here" to deal with the war on terror. The President's belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that "he's the man," the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reelection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose.


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051205fa_fact

that might be talked about to keep the Evangelicals on board (suprised Sy Hersh thinks this) - BUT it is ROBBERY, pure and simple. They care about the oil and the money, nothing more, nothing less. They've all gotten quite rich off this scheme, so in their minds the failure has not really been a "failure" at all. Its serving its purpose well.

while I like to think Jr. is too stupid for that level of business I know he could be used for it.

From Pillar five: my edit.


...Iraq has enormous economic potential, with an educated, young, and skilled workforce and vast natural resources...


Yup oil.

the most audacious part advocates remaining to win the "War on Terror" - in a country that wasn't harboring terrorists until we invaded - on other, invalid grounds. How nutty is that?

Oil is not mentioned as a part of the strategic objective at all - an absurdity because Iraq is sitting upon the second largest supply of probable reserves in the world.

...is dense and stupid.

That's my favorite header. Here are my favorite bullet points, from a section entitled "Failure Is Not An Option."

Why is failure not an option? because if we failed, well...

"Iraq would become a safe haven from which terrorists could plan attacks against America, American interests abroad, and our allies."

Which it has.

"Middle East reformers would never again fully trust assurances of support for democracy and human rights in the region--a historic opportunity lost."

Which they don't.

"The resultant tribal and sectarian chaos would have major consequences for American security and interests in the region."

WHICH IT HAS.

So really, instead of heading that section "Failure Is Not An Option," it should be called, "Why This War Was A Really Fucking Bad Idea And We Should Have Listened To You, Plaidder, I Know We Should Have, But I Was Fighting It So Hard Even Though I Knew You Were Right But I Knew It Would Be Wrong To Listen To You Because You're An Anti-American Anti-War Commie Pinko Fellow Traveler But I See It All Clearly Now I Was Wrong All Along And I Want To Come Back Can You Ever Forgive Me?"

More to come (unfortunately),

The Plaid Adder

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

My 4 year old son could do a better job.

Failure is Not an Option
Who writes this crap?

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists.

Okay, who has that picture of Bush with the shotgun and the turkey?

It's terrorist season, no it's duck season, terrorist season, duck season...

Lame is as lame does.

Dap

Freedom 8 times
Rejectionist 13
Terrorist 79
Insurgency 8
Insurgent 14
Weapons of Mass Destruction 2
Iraq 505
America 29
Threat 12
September the 11th 1
progress 31
problem 1
victory 34
success 17
Saddamist 8
Saddam 17
failure 6

Rah! Rah!



:puke:

This can't be happening.



These manslaughtering little teletubbies have jumped out of the airplane without a parachute, and now they are flapping their arms pretending to fly.

This new reality sucks. Please make it stop.

that the close-up of Bush with that background was intended to suggest airplane windows, perhaps evoking a sense of 9-11? Remember that speech that had the flags contorted to spell out 911? These guys will put so much energy into PR and message manipulation, and so little into any policy other than further enriching the rich.

That's scary! I mean more scary than usual...

for GERMANY - Circa 1933..

Thanks for playing, we have these lovely parting gifts for those who lost, Iron Maidens, the RACK and of course a Hot Poker up the Rear!!



Well, that's all for now, join us again next week for another installment of "Name That DESPOT"!!

This is one of the scariest visuals I think they've ever come up with..

Bush has nothing to show since the Iraq invasion only a quagmire

Great the delusional imbecile has been "stratergizing"

:)

How has Bush's speech affected your opinion of the U.S.' Iraq strategy?
There's been no change 45%
My opinion has lowered 31%
My opinion has improved 24%
Do you think the U.S. will ultimately achieve victory in Iraq?
No 65%
Yes 35%
Total Votes: 80,086


http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051129175309990006

How has Bush's speech affected your opinion of the U.S.' Iraq strategy?
There's been no change 46%
My opinion has lowered 32%
My opinion has improved 23%
Do you think the U.S. will ultimately achieve victory in Iraq?
No 66%
Yes 34%
Total Votes: 94,025

things have actually gotten worse for Bush since earlier today.

Step 2: A miracle happens
Step 3: World Peace! Everyone loves America!

=======

I think they have to be a little more specific in Step 2.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

UK reports on two analysts with a large report who say US can last no more than three more years in Iraq and we need to drop creating democracy, settling for stability. (Saddam is gone: long live the new Saddam :sarcasm: )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1955978&mesg_id=1955978

I also understand there will be more speeches during the next few weeks.

I wonder how many will continue to be at military bases. Would love to see figures on W speeches by locations.

stay the course. :eyes: Whatever the hell THAT means! More needless deaths, billions more wasted, all so georgie can have bragging rights around the bush dinner table and make his pals more rich than they already are. :puke:
fuck you, georgie! :grr:

In 1846 the US invaded Mexico over a border dispute. By 1848 the US had taken Mexico City and had the Mexican Government Sign a Peace Treaty giving the US Texas to California (Americans had come to dominate this area is the previous 30 years so no serious guerrilla activity against the US, in 1848 the area still had a strong Mexican influence, but since Spain withdrew from Mexico in 1819, the Americans had moved in and the trade routes had shifted to St Louis from Mexico City).

In 1862 France, Spain and Britain took Vasquez to force the Mexican Government to pay back debts (Soon afterward the Spanish and British Soldiers left). The French stayed and Marched on Mexico City basically following the same path the Americans had followed in 1848 (and Cortez had followed in 1521). Unlike the American who just wanted to legally transfer possession of what they already occupied in 1848, the French decided to hold onto Mexico as part of the French Second Empire under Napoleon III (Nephew to Napoleon Bonaparte). Thus Bush has NOT done what President Polk did in 1848, fight for a clear objective and once achieved withdraw, instead Bush is following Napoleon III in trying to take control of a Country THAT DOES NOT WANT HIM TO RULE THEM.

President Polk in 1846 had a clear objective, transfer Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California to US hands. These areas had been trading with Americans since 1819 and thus had become part of the US economy. It was a quick war and ended in a quick treaty with very little fighting afterward as both sides accepted the situation.

On the other hand when Napoleon III invaded Mexico, he wanted to RULE MEXICO, something the US was NOT about to do in 1848. This is the same trap Bush in following into. Gulf War I was a quick victory like the American Mexican war of 1848, and this war is becoming like the French Invasion of 1862. Now Napoleon III withdrew in 1866 (after President Johnson ordered Grant to Mass Troops on the Border. With the French Troops left the Mexicans threw out the imposed French Government (Shooting the Leader). I suspect the same will happen whenever the US pulls out NO MATTER HOW LONG WE ARE IN IRAQ.

The plan basically follows what the French wanted to do in 1862-1866, but failed and will fail in Iraq. My biggest question is who will be shot? Will the leadership do what the South Vietnamese Leadership did (Basically pulling out as the US cut off its financial support for the Government in 1975, US troops left three years before but financial support continued till 1975 and when it was cut the South Vietnamese Government fail).

Phase 1 Invade Iraq

Phase 3 Profit

Phase 2 ??????

Destroy the economy.

So now we don't really have "Mission Accomplished"; we have a "Mission-Accomplished-Related National Strategy". Where's your flight suit now, backpedalin' Bush?

Well, this isnt new. Bush spouted another big load of crap from his mouth as he always does. Anohter bunch of lies, another attempt to cheat the American public, another deceitful attempt at creating profits for his defense contractor friends and his murderous VPee.

The only plan that will work in Iraq is an Immediate, Complete and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, dismantling that embassy of US with 3000+ staff and paying compensation to the victims of merciless bombings of the Iraqi cities.

the easier it is for us to hang gw with.

But I was really hoping he wouldn't throw any more soldiers in front of his dysfunctional need to "stay the course".


My God but I missed you, Plaid Adder.

It all gibberish .... just talking points .... consult with coalition partners?

in a nice, glossy folder would make it any better? Everything's about appearance. Nothing's about substance.

I can't believe someone wrote that crap. I am totally speechless. Will the next speech be written up in Crayon? Using alternating colors?

Gads.

I get nauseated whenever I see Bushsmirks face. I wish I didn't have to look at it on the front page so often.:puke:

the US Treasury into their pockets.

Where is that missing $8.8 billion?

It never ceases to amaze me how this administration has it's collective finger on the pulse of America. What's next... a timely National Strategy for a response to a hurricane in the gulf coast?

I poured through all 38 pages looking specifically for data showing targets and variance from target as an indication of progress. As I expected, I came up empty.

On page 16 were references to some web pages citing certain measurements. I confess that I did not check them out. But you can bet that no feet were held to the fire. No objectives and no variance from those objectives.

Later, on pages 26-27 I did locate some economic data on oil production and GDP that I did find useful. Not unsurprising, it showed that oil production in 2005 is down from 2004. It also listed GDP to be up by 3.7% in 2005 with a projection of 17% in 2006. Finally, a target to hang your hat on. But there was no indication as to how the huge improvement would come about, as though somebody threw a dart and it struck "17".

Lastly, I frequently review planning documents that are greater than 35 pages covering a fairly minor enhancement to our computer system. How can a plan to rebuild a nation of 25 million people be more brief than a plan to incorporate a regulatory change into our existing computer system. Short answer, it can't. Not even close.

The Security Track was summarized as (clear, hold, build). The constant complaint is that the military goes on a mission to clear, but because they don't have sufficient troops on the ground, they retreat only to have to return at a later date. It was over a year ago that we went into Fallujah at great cost of life. Apply clear, hold, build to what has transpired in Fallujah -- can't do it, can you?

Read it and weep is an apt characterization for this pathetic 35 page document.

Not only no indication as to how improvement comes about, and I admit I didn't read every page, but I also didn't see the part of the plan on how US will continue to pay for it all. (Not that they care or anything but some of us do.)

Man, that whole thing sounds like a extra-large pile of non-sensical crap!!
How many times do you reckon the document says "terrorists" and "vital to America's security".

Can I tell you something? There is no danger to America!! If you would've actually put effort into catching Osama bin Laden and left it at that, there would be no danger. There still is no danger to anyone.

The whole "security" thing is a thinly disguised "tug" string (pulling the public along). That line is so overused.

Man, that whole thing sounds like a extra-large pile of non-sensical crap!!
How many times do you reckon the document says "terrorists" and "vital to America's security".

Can I tell you something? There is no danger to America!! If you would've actually put effort into catching Osama bin Laden and left it at that, there would be no danger. There still is no danger to anyone.

The whole "security" thing is a thinly disguised "tug" string (pulling the public along). That line is so overused.

The last time I read a work this weak was 4 am one morning of my freshman year at college. I suffered through the first 10 pages then scrolled through the last 25 only to see the words "perverse" , "September 11" and "terrorist" burn themselves into my retina.
What the hell is this?

"We judge that few from this group can be won over to support a democratic Iraq, but that this group can be marginalized to the point where it can and will be defeated by Iraqi forces."

Can we go one week without mentioning September 11? I am hereby issuing a moratorium on the use of "9-11" and it's predecessor, "September 11". From now on it will be called "OSAMA BIN LADEN'S organized attacks against the World Trade Center of New York and The Pentagon in Washington", that ought to slow these motherfucking propagandists down a little.


Actually I"m speechless. I am so depressed. God save us ALL.

While Bush took nearly three years to publish this vague document, several months ago, we put together a commonsense exit strategy for Iraq. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

http://www.lp.org/cgi-bin/plan/plan.cgi?action=add_form