What's The Strategy?

I guess the President had a press conference today where he claimed that he will keep the same strategy going in Iraq, even while jettisoning the "stay the course" slogan. The real question is, what is that strategy? Is the idea to give the Iraqis a timetable for stepping up to handle security, or not?

The defiant al-Maliki also slammed the top U.S. military and diplomatic representatives in Iraq for saying his government needed to set a timetable to curb violence in the country. At a news conference Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said al-Maliki had agreed.

"I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it," al-Maliki said at a news conference.

Is the strategy to disarm the Shiite militias who are responsible for much of the sectarian violence, or not?

U.S. and Iraqi forces raided the stronghold of a Shiite militia led by a radical anti-American cleric in search of a death squad leader in an operation disavowed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Maliki, who relies on political support from the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said the strike against a figure in al-Sadr's Mahdi militia in Sadr City "will not be repeated."

Is the strategy to draw down troops as the Iraqis stand up and take control over their country, or not?

Two weeks before U.S. midterm elections, American officials unveiled a timeline Tuesday for Iraq's Shiite-led government to take specific steps to calm the world's most dangerous capital and said more U.S. troops might be needed to quell the bloodshed [...]

At a rare joint news conference with the American ambassador, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, said additional U.S. troops could come from inside or outside Iraq to "improve basic services for the population of Baghdad."

"Now, do we need more troops to do that? Maybe. And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis," Casey said. There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.

Is the strategy to bring countries in the region like Iran and Syria into the country to help quell the violence and give them a stake in Iraq's stability, or not?

America's civilian and military leaders in Iraq linked Iran and Syria with al Qaeda on Tuesday as forces trying to tear the country apart and prevent the United States from establishing a stable democracy.

The comments from ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and General George Casey were among the strongest U.S. officials have leveled against Iraq's two neighbors over alleged support for armed groups behind much of the bloodshed.

In fact, there is no strategy here at all, just cheerleading and more empty slogans like "we won't leave until the job is done." There's no real idea what "getting the job done" means, and as you can see there are dozens of completely contradictory ways to get that job done. This is an ad hoc strategy made up based on what day it is and what audience is being addressed. Marty Kaplan captures this perfectly:

I'm the decider.

Except for deciding how many troops we have in Iraq, in which case, General Casey is the decider.

Except for deciding what benchmarks the Iraqis have to meet, in which case, Prime Minister al-Maliki is the decider.

Except for deciding what "getting the job done" in Iraq means, in which case, Muqtada al-Sadr and Osama Bin Laden are the deciders.

Except for deciding if it's "stay the course," or "strategy for victory," in which case Karl is the decider.

I'm looking forward to the Baker-Hamilton report. If it agrees with my strategy for victory and getting the job done, I will read it. I call this attitude "flexibility."

There's a big difference between timetables and "timetables." When I talk about them, they're good. When Democrats talk about them, what they're saying is, the terrorists should have a caliphate from Spain to Indonesia.

This is the kind of strategy you get when you know that all the good options are unavailable to you but you don't want to admit it. And it's the kind of strategy you get when you want to demonize and fearmonger to hide the fact that you don't want to leave the country and the vast majority of the public does.

The choice in this election is totally clear. Any vote for a politician that supports this war, that supports this kabuki strategy, is a vote to enable Bush, to enable the continued slaughter of Iraqis and death of our troops. Bill Maher is absolutely right, it's good to obstruct when somebody is pushing an incoherent and reckless strategy. It's good to change course when the path your country is going down is a road to ruin. And yes, it's good to withdraw troops and to follow the advice of George McGovern, who was right on Vietnam and is right again.

Co-written with William R. Polk, a former professor and State Department Middle East expert, the 142-page volume calls for a phased withdrawal of 140,000 U.S. troops beginning by year's end and finishing by June 30. The authors say the Iraqi government should request the presence of an international force, including Arab and Muslim troops, to help keep order after the departure of the Americans.

McGovern and Polk call for an aggressive program of U.S. reconstruction aid to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure destroyed in the war. Among other steps, the two say the United States should "express its condolences" to the Iraqi people for the large number of Iraqis killed, incapacitated, incarcerated or tortured. "A simple gesture of conciliation would go far to shift our relationship from occupation to friendship," they write.

There are only two weeks left. Do what you can to stop this insanity and get our country back on track.