Redefining Success
We have been led to believe that a key indicator of whether the military’s surge strategy is working is the reduction of killing in Baghdad. However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made an astonishing statement concerning what constitutes success in Iraq. Secretary Gates told Congress: “Success in Iraq does not require a significant reduction in insurgent attacks or violence.”
The new Baghdad security strategy has yet to produce any measurable decline in violence, despite the fact that four of five additional U.S. combat brigades are now in place. The Pentagon has begun lowering expectations for what will constitute progress when the strategy is reviewed at the end of the summer.
Gates continued: “The goal in September is not whether the violence has been significantly reduced, or stability has been brought, it seems to me, but rather whether it has been reduced to a level that the political reconciliation process is moving forward in some meaningful way.” With no requirement for stability or a significant reduction in violence, almost any trend could be seen as justification for keeping the 30,000 extra U.S. troops in Iraq.
Gates promised Congress an honest evaluation of the plan, which he says could set the stage for a U.S. troop reduction. At the same time, the number two U.S. commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, is quoted by "The Washington Post" as saying: "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure."
When questioned about the inconsistency between his statement and that of Secretary Gates, General Odierno insists he had been misquoted, that the latest rotation plan simply gives commanders the ability to maintain elevated troop levels through April, if that's the decision. And after signing deployment orders this week for 10 fresh brigades of 35,000 soldiers.
Gates says that, whatever happens in September, it won't lead to what he calls a precipitous decision. Whether or not the strategy is working, Gates says it will point to a new direction, but he's not giving a hint of what that new direction might be.”
Not a hint of a new direction, but instead an obscure, indistinct definition of success, which is obviously a refusal to commit to any rational benchmark for progress.
The new Baghdad security strategy has yet to produce any measurable decline in violence, despite the fact that four of five additional U.S. combat brigades are now in place. The Pentagon has begun lowering expectations for what will constitute progress when the strategy is reviewed at the end of the summer.
Gates continued: “The goal in September is not whether the violence has been significantly reduced, or stability has been brought, it seems to me, but rather whether it has been reduced to a level that the political reconciliation process is moving forward in some meaningful way.” With no requirement for stability or a significant reduction in violence, almost any trend could be seen as justification for keeping the 30,000 extra U.S. troops in Iraq.
Gates promised Congress an honest evaluation of the plan, which he says could set the stage for a U.S. troop reduction. At the same time, the number two U.S. commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, is quoted by "The Washington Post" as saying: "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure."
When questioned about the inconsistency between his statement and that of Secretary Gates, General Odierno insists he had been misquoted, that the latest rotation plan simply gives commanders the ability to maintain elevated troop levels through April, if that's the decision. And after signing deployment orders this week for 10 fresh brigades of 35,000 soldiers.
Gates says that, whatever happens in September, it won't lead to what he calls a precipitous decision. Whether or not the strategy is working, Gates says it will point to a new direction, but he's not giving a hint of what that new direction might be.”
Not a hint of a new direction, but instead an obscure, indistinct definition of success, which is obviously a refusal to commit to any rational benchmark for progress.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home