What's Bush's "Plan for victory"?

[furt]

@clairobscur

Well… I was assuming that he would maybe not announce something really new, but would at least outline what he intends to do in practice, when, how, etc… in the coming months or years.

That would fall under the category of “announcing battle plans to the enemy.”

But, there was nothing substantively new. Its just a repeat of a repeat of a repeat given for those who say they don’t understand.

[Atticus_Finch]

@furt

But, there was nothing substantively new. Its just a repeat of a repeat of a repeat given for those who say they don’t understand.

There’s nothing to understand. It’s just a set of slogans thought up by a bunch of PR specialists. It’s not a plan, and bears no relation to reality in its premises or conclusions.

[clairobscur]

@furt

That would fall under the category of “announcing battle plans to the enemy.”.

Hmm…Well, not necessarily. You might announce a long-term policy without mentionning that the magic potion is hidden in the garden, in the small cabin which isn’t guarded during the night.

[John_Mace]

@Atticus Finch

There’s nothing to understand. It’s just a set of slogans thought up by a bunch of PR specialists. It’s not a plan, and bears no relation to reality in its premises or conclusions.

You know this kind of stuff really bugs me. If you want to criticize the plan, that’s fine. If you think the plan won’t work, that’s fine. But to say it isn’t a plan is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and saying NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH.

I’m as anti-war as they come, and I’m not very optimistic about the eventual outcome. I’m not particularly thrilled with this plan, either, as I’d like to see a lot more pressure put on the Iraqis to build up their security forces. But it IS a plan, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[XT]

I actually haven’t read through the speech, but I was reading this article and I have to admit I like this part:

Bush said the U.S. military presence in Iraq is set to change, by making fewer patrols and convoys, moving out of Iraqi cities and focusing more on specialized operations aimed at high-value terrorist targets.

“As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists,” Bush told a supportive audience at the U.S. Naval Academy. “These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.”

This is kind of inline with my own thinking which is to start putting more of the burden on the Iraqi military before we begin troop withdrawl by cutting down on US patrolling and taking a more defensive posture with reguards to our conventional troops while ramping up Special Forces OPs aimed directly at the terrorists. After a few months (especially after the December elections) we should be able to evaluate how this is working out, continue to shift the burden to Iraqs military, continue to lessen our own direct involvement, continue to position ourselves in a more defensive posture until the majority of the burden for the day to day fighting of the insurgency is on the Iraqi military…and THEN set some timetables (even if only internally) for beginning the withdrawl of our conventional forces from Iraq. I figure (if things work out and the Iraqi military is actually able to carry some of the water there) that we could see a major shift of our current posture and the beginning of a troop withdrawl by late spring or early summer of next year.

If we DON’T get that, if we don’t start shifting the burden and posture ourselves more defensively, if the Iraqi military is unable or unwilling to take the load…THEN Bush will have failed big time and it will be the time for some hard decisions on our part.

-XT

[Atticus_Finch]

@John Mace

You know this kind of stuff really bugs me. If you want to criticize the plan, that’s fine. If you think the plan won’t work, that’s fine. But to say it isn’t a plan is the same as putting your fingers in your ears and saying NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH-NAH.

A plan would involve an evaluation of the current problems, and concrete steps that will be made by the Americans and their allies to achieve goals. It does not have this. Currently, it’s an aspirational statement.

[Atticus_Finch]

To clarify, I’ll borrow xtisme’s quote:

“As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists,” Bush told a supportive audience at the U.S. Naval Academy. “These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.”

Look at the use of the passive voice. It says experience will be gained, but not how. It says the process will advance, but not how. It says that decisions will be driven by conditions on the ground, but not what decisions will flow from what conditions.

It’s vague to the point of uselessness.

[XT]

@Atticus Finch

Look at the use of the passive voice. It says experience will be gained, but not how. It says the process will advance, but not how. It says that decisions will be driven by conditions on the ground, but not what decisions will flow from what conditions.

It’s vague to the point of uselessness.

Did you expect him to come out in a speech with the meat of the plan? Provide diagrams and charts? Perhaps have onscreen graphics? This was a speech to a buch of folks at the Naval Academy. Have your read through John Maces 35 page PDF? Do you find that equally passive? Or are you basing this on a politicians speech to a bunch of college kids?

-XT

[andrewdt85]

The way Bush talks of not leaving until we’ve won, of not running from the enemy:

“To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander-in-chief.”

because doing so would make those who have died to have died in vain, is anyone else reminded of Jean Claude van Damme’s speech in Street Fighter: The Movie?

“Troopers! I have just received new orders. Our superiors say the war is cancelled, and we can all go home. Bison is getting paid off for his crimes, and our friends will have died here… will have died for nothing. But… we can all go home. Meanwhile, ideals like these - freedom, and justice - they get packed up. But… we can all go home. Well… I’m not going home. I’m gonna get on my boat, and I’m going up-river, and I’m going to kick that son-of-a-bitch Bison’s ass so HARD… that the next Bison wanna-be is gonna feel it. Now who wants to go home… and who wants to go- WITH ME!!!”

Just replace a few names and details-

“My fellow Americans! I have just received new orders. Our superiors say they want the war cancelled, so that we can all go home. Osama is getting paid off for his crimes, and our troops will have died here… will have died for nothing. But… we could all go home. Meanwhile, ideals like these - freedom, and justice - they get packed up. But… we could all go home. Well… I’m not going home. I’m gonna get on my horse, and I’m gonna ride into Afghanistan, and I’m going to kick that son-of-a-bitch Osama’s ass so HARD… that the next Al Qaeda leader wanna-be is gonna feel it. Now who wants to go home… and who wants to go- WITH ME!!!”

[Atticus_Finch]

@xtisme

Did you expect him to come out in a speech with the meat of the plan? Provide diagrams and charts? Perhaps have onscreen graphics? This was a speech to a buch of folks at the Naval Academy. Have your read through John Maces 35 page PDF? Do you find that equally passive? Or are you basing this on a politicians speech to a bunch of college kids?

God forbid a politician should ever say something of substance! Yes, it would be nice if there were some kind of meat in the speech itself.

Statistics, charts, graphics etc can wait for the plan. But they aren’t in there either, apart from the naff little flags on every page. Yes, I’ve read it. Yes, it’s equally passive. Everything’s ok. Everything’s going to plan. What is our plan? Well, it’s based on this 8-part strategy. What are these 8 parts? Well, we’re already doing them. A sample:

The United States is helping Iraq achieve this objective through the following lines of action:

• Rehabilitating critical infrastructure in the production and distribution of fuels and electric power as well as training engineers to maintain and operate this infrastructure
• Supporting and strengthening the nascent institutions of public utilities and regulatory agencies
• Rehabilitating water and sanitation infrastructure to provide safe drinking water and reducing the transmission of water-borne disease

These aren’t plans. These are vague statements about existing programs, and extremely vague ones, about existing programs, no matter how unsuccessful. Shouldn’t there be a water system by now, three years in?

The Oxford English Dictionary describes a plan as:

A formulated or organized method according to which something is to be done; a scheme of action, project, design; the way in which it is proposed to carry out some proceeding.

A plan is about future events, how things will be done. It must include how things must be done. “We will send 1000 Army engineers to Iraq to build pipelines”, that would be part of a plan - future tense, concrete proposals. “We are fixing the water system” is present tense and has nothing concrete in it.

This “plan” is a worthless PR exercise.

[Atticus_Finch]

@andrewdt85

Now who wants to go home… and who wants to go- WITH ME!!!"

Bush has never been within a continent of a war. Your analogy fails right there.

[John_Mace]

What is worthless is any attempt to give Bush one ounce of credit on this Message Board. Sorry he didn’t tell you how many cement trucks were scheduled for delivering how many cubic meters of cement on every day for the next two years. It’s clear that there is nothing Bush could’ve said would satisfy the Bushwhackers on this board.

[Atticus_Finch]

Screw cement trucks, how about troop numbers? How about rough estimates of dates or times of completion, perhaps given in years? How about money estimates? Surely these are important things to plan for in a war?

Here’s a plan for the end of a war with real numbers and whole lot of realpolitik.

[Atticus_Finch]

Link didn’t work:

Here’s a plan for the end of a war with real numbers and whole lot of realpolitik.

[Exploding_Kitchen]

Bush gets credit where credit is due. But when a PR pamphlet is released as a plan, he deserves to be called out it, as does any politican of any political party when something that idiotic is done.

If you aren’t willing to debate the topic, John, or can’t support an argument, that’s fine. But trying to blow it off as “the lib’rul SDMB” having a problem doesn’t cut it.

[XT]

@Atticus Finch

God forbid a politician should ever say something of substance! Yes, it would be nice if there were some kind of meat in the speech itself.

Why would you expect such from a politician? In your experience is this unusual for a sitting president…or for any other politician who ever walked the earth?

@Atticus Finch

Statistics, charts, graphics etc can wait for the plan. But they aren’t in there either, apart from the naff little flags on every page. Yes, I’ve read it. Yes, it’s equally passive. Everything’s ok. Everything’s going to plan. What is our plan? Well, it’s based on this 8-part strategy. What are these 8 parts? Well, we’re already doing them. A sample:

I see. So, your real expectation was for Bush to lay out a detailed project plan for the entire operation. And what, in the past, has lead you to expect such? It seems to me that you are asking for something from Bush that no president (or politician) gives…and then blasting him for the lack. I don’t recall detailed plans from Roosevelt or Truman on the conduct of WWII, on the occupation of Germany and Japan. I vaguely recall similar high level bullet type points. I don’t recall anything like what you are asking for during the Korean war either…nor Vietnam. I don’t recall anything like this for Bosnia, Somolia or for the first Gulf War either. I’m wracking my brain for something similar from Madison during the 1812 conflict…but I don’t remember anything there either.

Maybe you could explain where this expectation of yours is coming from? Are you just mad because, contrary to history and an understanding of the politician subspecies you feel Bush should break the mold and do what you want?

-XT

[David_Simmons]

@xtisme

Did you expect him to come out in a speech with the meat of the plan? Provide diagrams and charts? Perhaps have onscreen graphics? This was a speech to a buch of folks at the Naval Academy. Have your read through John Maces 35 page PDF? Do you find that equally passive? Or are you basing this on a politicians speech to a bunch of college kids?

-XT

Well, a plan is a statement of objectives to be obtained and** the steps required to get from where we are now to those objectives.** How much detail is included in any presentation depends upon the purpose of the presentation.

There is some detail in the NY Times rundown in John Mace’s cite. However, starting on Page 14 all I see in the supposed details of the Political, Security and Economic tracks is a restatement of the objectives broken down into more detailed objectives. I don’t see any concrete steps to achieve the objectives.

When a speech is advertised as being for the purpose of explaining how the President expects get from here to there I really expect a few details on how the President expects to get from here to there.

Most of the words in the cite are about how bad the enemies are and how wonderfil it will be when we win.

[Atticus_Finch]

@xtisme

I see. So, your real expectation was for Bush to lay out a detailed project plan for the entire operation. And what, in the past, has lead you to expect such?

How about this one:

This production of ours in the United States must be raised far above present levels, even though it will mean the dislocation of the lives and occupations of millions of our own people. We must raise our sights all along the production line. Let no man say it cannot be done. It must be done–and we have undertaken to do it.

I have just sent a letter of directive to the appropriate departments and agencies of our Government, ordering that immediate steps be taken:

First, to increase our production rate of airplanes so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall produce 60,000 planes, 10,000 more than the goal that we set a year and a half ago. This includes 45,000 combat planes–bombers, dive bombers, pursuit planes. The rate of increase will be maintained and continued so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 125,000 airplanes, including 100,000 combat planes.

Second, to increase our production rate of tanks so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall produce 45,000 tanks; and to continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 75,000 tanks.

Third, to increase our production rate of anti-aircraft guns so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall produce 20,000 of them; and to continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall produce 35,000 anti-aircraft guns.

And fourth, to increase our production rate of merchant ships so rapidly that in this year, 1942, we shall build 6,000,000 deadweight tons as compared with a 1941 completed production of 1,100,000. And finally, we shall continue that increase so that next year, 1943, we shall build 10,000,000 tons of shipping.

These figures and similar figures for a multitude of other implements of war will give the Japanese and the Nazis a little idea of just what they accomplished in the attack at Pearl Harbor.

And I rather hope that all these figures which I have given will become common knowledge in Germany and Japan.

It’s Roosevelt’s Ninth State of the Union - yes, a speech from a politician. It has specific actions. It has executive action. It has numbers. And they went ahead and damned well did it.

That is a plan.

[Cervaise]

@John Mace

But it IS a plan, whether you acknowledge it or not.

I have a plan to become wealthy. Goes like this.

1. Accumulate a lot of money.
2. Don’t lose it.

Strangely, though, my bank account remains mired in middle-class-ness. Wonder why that is.

[John_Mace]

@Atticus Finch

How about this one:
It’s Roosevelt’s Ninth State of the Union - yes, a speech from a politician. It has specific actions. It has executive action. It has numbers. And they went ahead and damned well did it.

That is a plan.

That’s not a plan to win the war, that’s a plan to ramp up needed armaments. We don’t lack for armaments in Iraq. Bush has made it clear all along that he will not give timetables for troop level withdrawls, so no one should expect to get one. On the political side, every milestone laid out 2 years ago has been met, on scheudle, and Iraq is headed for another election in a few weeks. There was the hand over of authority, the first election, the writing of the constiution, the voting on the constutition, and now the election for the permanent government.

Say what you will about not enough detail for troop withdrawls (which Bush has clearly said he won’t give), you have to agree that the plan for setting up the Iraqi government has been in place for several years now, and has executed on schudule. To dismiss this entire part of the reconstruction effort speaks of an unwillingness to acknowledge anything positive that has been accomplished.