Standing Up, Standing Down. Wandering Around.
The President made his weekly radio address, and repeated his canned phrasing about when we'll be getting our troops out of Iraq.
Which makes me wonder, how will we know they are ready? What constitutes "standing up"? When they show up for work and don't run away after the first shot? When they are able to bring stability to their country? I hope it's not the latter.
Because the US Armed Forces are supposed to be the best-trained in the world, and even they are not trained well enough to bring stability to Iraq.
If the world's best-trained army is doing the best it can, and today's Iraq is the result, just exactly what kind of training are we waiting for that will allow the Iraqis to do better? (And if we knew how to give it to them, why aren't we doing it ourselves?)
And what about equipment? Our forces have the advantage of being better equipped than we might expect Iraqi forces to be (despite the unbelievable ongoing inability of the Pentagon to provide armor). Are we waiting for the Iraqis to get their armor, also?
In management school, I learned about "SMART" objectives. SMART stood for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-focussed, and Timely, which are the features of a well-formed management objective. I'm sure our MBA President has heard of the method. Yet what we keep hearing is not only not specific or measurable, one has to wonder if it's even attainable. (I'm not even going to hope for results-focussed, and we know already it isn't timely.)
What, exactly, are we waiting for? The sad logic behind the President's words seems to be that this may be the best of all possible worlds for Iraq. Even if we could magically transfer all the knowledge of all our troops into Iraqi subtitutes, the Iraqis are still screwed. The Iraqi forces would speak the language, which would help, but they'd have other deficits that would make them, at best, just as ineffective at restoring order as we are. And if we're waiting for Iraqi forces that are better than ours, well, it'll be a long wait.
What is he talking about? He goes on:
How do we define "defeating the terrorists in Iraq" exactly? How do we measure this objective? It's not going to be like V-J Day, right? The radio won't announce that the Emperor of Iraqi Terror has signed an unconditional surrender.
However Bush would define it, there remains the question: Are we waiting until we have Iraqi units trained to some as-yet-undefined standard, ready to fight terrorists and insurgents themselves, or are we waiting until "the terrorists in Iraq" have been defeated, whatever that means? Or would merely the success in training Iraqi forces be a "defeat" of the terrorists?
By the end of the address, it was clear that Mr. Bush had no intention of answering, or even acknowledging the existence of such questions. Despite his vaunted business education, he is chronically unwilling or unable to discuss clear strategy and objectives.
Instead, we are left with the image of a small man trapped in his own rhetorical reality, frightened by the possible appearance of timidity, hiding from embarassments, and afraid of what "the others" will think of him. As the address concludes, we hear him determinedly fiddling, while Iraq, and more lives, burn.
We're hunting down the terrorists and training the security forces of a free Iraq so Iraqis can defend their own country. Our approach can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.The implication is, that, once we've got a batallion off Iraqi troops trained well enough to take on the "terrorists", we'll get a batallion of our troops out.
Which makes me wonder, how will we know they are ready? What constitutes "standing up"? When they show up for work and don't run away after the first shot? When they are able to bring stability to their country? I hope it's not the latter.
Because the US Armed Forces are supposed to be the best-trained in the world, and even they are not trained well enough to bring stability to Iraq.
If the world's best-trained army is doing the best it can, and today's Iraq is the result, just exactly what kind of training are we waiting for that will allow the Iraqis to do better? (And if we knew how to give it to them, why aren't we doing it ourselves?)
And what about equipment? Our forces have the advantage of being better equipped than we might expect Iraqi forces to be (despite the unbelievable ongoing inability of the Pentagon to provide armor). Are we waiting for the Iraqis to get their armor, also?
In management school, I learned about "SMART" objectives. SMART stood for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results-focussed, and Timely, which are the features of a well-formed management objective. I'm sure our MBA President has heard of the method. Yet what we keep hearing is not only not specific or measurable, one has to wonder if it's even attainable. (I'm not even going to hope for results-focussed, and we know already it isn't timely.)
What, exactly, are we waiting for? The sad logic behind the President's words seems to be that this may be the best of all possible worlds for Iraq. Even if we could magically transfer all the knowledge of all our troops into Iraqi subtitutes, the Iraqis are still screwed. The Iraqi forces would speak the language, which would help, but they'd have other deficits that would make them, at best, just as ineffective at restoring order as we are. And if we're waiting for Iraqi forces that are better than ours, well, it'll be a long wait.
What is he talking about? He goes on:
And when that mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will come home to a proud and grateful nation.Here I get more confused. Even though this sentence came right after the one about standing up and standing down, it seems like it's part of a different objective. First, we're talking about a draw-down, then it seems like all the troops will be coming home at once, to a grateful nation, ticker-tape, etc. After completing the "mission" of "defeating the terrorists in Iraq? Huh?
How do we define "defeating the terrorists in Iraq" exactly? How do we measure this objective? It's not going to be like V-J Day, right? The radio won't announce that the Emperor of Iraqi Terror has signed an unconditional surrender.
However Bush would define it, there remains the question: Are we waiting until we have Iraqi units trained to some as-yet-undefined standard, ready to fight terrorists and insurgents themselves, or are we waiting until "the terrorists in Iraq" have been defeated, whatever that means? Or would merely the success in training Iraqi forces be a "defeat" of the terrorists?
By the end of the address, it was clear that Mr. Bush had no intention of answering, or even acknowledging the existence of such questions. Despite his vaunted business education, he is chronically unwilling or unable to discuss clear strategy and objectives.
Instead, we are left with the image of a small man trapped in his own rhetorical reality, frightened by the possible appearance of timidity, hiding from embarassments, and afraid of what "the others" will think of him. As the address concludes, we hear him determinedly fiddling, while Iraq, and more lives, burn.
The terrorists cannot defeat us on the battlefield. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve. That will not happen on my watch. Withdrawing our troops from Iraq prematurely would betray the Iraqi people, and would cause others to question America's commitment to spreading freedom and winning the war on terror. So we will honor the fallen by completing the mission for which they gave their lives, and by doing so we will ensure that freedom and peace prevail.
posted by Paul at 1:55 PM |
|
email this
