The exit strategy will be determined by the quantity and capability of the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces). We’re not going to get a timetable from Bush on this, and if one thing is sorely lacking in “the plan” is enough detail to give me confidence that the ISF will in fact come up to speed at some time in the future.
The speech Bush gave yesterday made it clear that the first efforts at getting the force built was a bust, and that the methodology for builiding up the ISF has been modified. It does seem that things are improving, if you believe the numbers he was quoting in his speech.
Personally, I disagree with the whole “timetable” deal. I see nothing wrong with giving at least a rough timetable of when we expect the ISF to ramp up and how that meshes with a ramp down of our forces. If the insurgents use that info to wait things out, then so much the better. I’d rather have the ISF fight them than have our guys doing that any day.
I don’t know whether we pay our informants or not, and I agree that when it comes to getting reliable intelligence, paying them is only marginally more effective than torturing them. One thing that’s not taken into account when discrediting paid reports is reputation and reliability of repeat customers.
If Tariq walks in today and gets $50 for ratting on his neighbor and then it turns out to be a lie, Tariq never gets another dollar. If Tariq rats out his neighbor who is an insurgent, then not only does he get his $50, but he gets a visit (perhaps from an inconspicuous IGF handler) who thanks him for such good information, maybe hands him another $50, and tells him to come back when he’s got more to share.
I suspect that “frustration with the insurgents” is the prevailing opinion in Baghdad and among the Shi’a. I’m a little less optimistic about Anbar province, where the Sunni and the tribes just want the Americans out (so that they can go to war with the Iranian-backed Shi’a).
Are we still committed to a “federal” Iraq? And, if so, how do we respond to a legitimate Sunni resistance?
We have recently heard reports of Shia militia attacking Sunni leaders under the guise of representing the legitimate government of Iraq, and wearing its uniform. Are we assured that such will not happen again, ever? Because, if we are not, then we face the unpleasant task of deciding how much oppression of the Sunni minority we can stomach before we puke.
At the very least, an ascendancy of the Shia majority means power and privilege will be wrenched from Sunni hands, either peacefully or otherwise. Surely it is naive to expect them to accede willingly? At what point, then, does a legitimate movement of resistance become an illegitimate “insurgency”? If a Sunni were to resist one of those uniformed militia on legitimate grounds, why would we believe that said militia would refrain from using us as thier attack dogs? Why should they shed their own blood when they can shed ours? How much easier can it be to eliminate a potential enemy than by providing “actionable intelligence”? With the added bonus of publicly clean hands: “Hey, we didn’t do it, the Americans did!”?
The Bushiviks are anxious to present this conflict in entirely secular terms, die hard Baathists and “rejectionist” and the like. But from here, with this gimlet eye, it looks like it is becoming increasingly religious/ethnic in character. And it looks increasingly like we have chosen a side, a side that finds it entirely convenient to permit us to spend our blood and treasure on their behalf, thank you very much, infidel pig, now get out.
The raw numbers don’t tell the whole story. See my first post in this thread linking to the Wall St Journal story - the troops are largely religious-ethnic militias loyal to individual leaders, rather than a unified force under firm government control. I think we can agree that this is as bad or worse for the growing religious-ethnic tensions than no army at all.
Bush may talk about the wonders of democracy, and how freedom will rain down from heaven in Iraq, but the reality of the situtation is that the stuff you’re talking about happens in pretty much every third world country in existence. Iraq, right now, is a third world country. There is going to be corruption, there is going to be oppression (to some extent) of minorities, there is going to be all manner of nastiness. I’m not say that we should turn a blind eye, but the mere existence of these things in not a reason to give up. Hell, look at our own history. One needn’t go back very far to find far worse than this on our own soil.
The key question is whether we are created a situation in which abuses can be brought to light, and that the populace was the political will to try to eliminate them. They jury is still out on this, but the mere fact that we’re discussing these absues means there is reason for optimism. I don’t buy the arguement that we have failed because we have not achieved perfection.
A contingency plan does not have to be pack up and leave, it might also be send more troops. (As was recommended before we went in.) I would feel a lot better about some secret plan if they had had one in the beginning. There appears to have been no thought allowed about what would happen when the Iraqis did not throw flowers. Since the same people are in charge, why do you ever suppose they’d do better now?
Remember, the lack of a plan was not from forgetting it - they deliberately cut out those who knew the area well enough to play devil’s advocate.
It’s fine not to have a hard-and-fast timetable. However, in order to measure progress, we need benchmarks of progress, and benchmarks can and should be accompanied by estimates of how long they ought to take to accomplish. If you’re expecting to accomplish a particular goal in 6-8 months, you don’t jump ship when it isn’t accomplished by then, but when it hasn’t been accomplished in a year, you’re forced to acknowledge that the benchmark wasn’t realized in the expected time, and you have to figure out why.
Won’t happen with these guys. Has this “accountability” crew ever held themselves accountable? Bremer’s Medal of Honor says it all.
Well, one would certainly hope so. We’ve been repeatedly told that Iraq had large numbers of security forces - and then events would test them and find them wanting.
I don’t have quotes handy, but the numbers were back up before Iraq blew up in April 2004, and then it’s been up and down and up again. Last time I heard, there were lots of troops, but only one battalion ready to stand on its own.
Big ‘if’. The capacity of these guys to cherry-pick or just plain make up data continues to astonish me.
Gee, it really sucks to be Tariq’s neighbor, doesn’t it? Not only do we waste money paying for bad intelligence, we waste time and resources to find out that it is bad, and by the way, an innocent man has been detained and interrogated.
See a problem with that plan, freedom and democracy-wise?
Who says the guy has to be “detained and interrogated”? If you call the cops in your city and tell them there is a drug deal going down on your street, don’t you expect them to investigate?
John Mace, how would you feel about extending Bush an ounce of credit if it turns out he lied during the course of the defense of the plan, and specifically about how the Iraqis supposedly led the Battle of Tal Afar:
My only issue is with those who claim that “this isn’t a plan”. I’m not saying it’s a good plan, or that there aren’t holes in it, or anything of the sort. I’d just hope that we could debate it instead of dismissing it out of hand. There is a debate going on in this thread now, but there wasn’t one happening when I initially made the comment about giving Bush an ounce of credit.
Yes. First, as John Mace noted, nobody’s getting detained or interrogated until there’s a reason to do so. You see, if you go around detaining and interrogating people for no good reason, you end up with a population that hates you.
Secondly, I’m sure the intelligence officers would love to stop handing out petty cash for leads… as soon as you come up with a better way to get solid actionable human intelligence. Assuming $50 per tip, you can buy 100 leads for $5,000. Let’s say that only one percent of my leads are any good – you just paid $5,000 to find an insurgent. We break down the door, find laptops, e-mail addresses, and napkins with bomb diagrams on them and so forth, and now your $5,000 in taxpayer money has just bought a treasure trove of top-quality, known-source intelligence in addition to an insurgent who can be detained and interrogated. Unless, of course, you can think of a better way to do it.
Sarcasms like this, as Mark Twain said, revolts me. For Chrissake, people are getting shot from 100 yards away just because their car seems to be “acting funny.”
Works fine as long as you assume that the time wasted following up the 99 fakes doesn’t allow many of the real insurgents time to carry out their mission or move to a new location.
It should be dismissed as not being an actual plan, yes, if not out of hand. I believe there are excellent arguments that this particular document and speech rely on false premises and are merely PR statements. They do not in any way represent a detailed way to get to a particular end and hence are not a plan.
I don’t have anything useful to add to this discussion, just a sequential threads kinda moment when this thread’s title was right next to a possible answer:
What’s Bush’s “Plan for Victory”?
Not Rape When Drunk
