Paq, in apparent response to the current political opposition to the war and distrust of the Administration (Murtha, the polls, the approval ratings, the Republican request for an exit strategy), Bush's office released a long document today on their "strategy for victory" in the Iraq war. You can read it here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...y_nov2005.html
Here's an excerpt of the definition of victory in a nutshell:
Quote:
VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED
As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:
* In the short term:
o An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
* In the medium term:
o An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
|
Note that in order to be victorious, we must be victorious in the long term:
Quote:
* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
|
So according to the rhetoric, if you add two and two together, the war in Iraq will continue until the terrorists have been defeated, the insurgency has been neutralized, and a fully functioning, secure, stable, united Iraq exists as a beacon of freedom and democracy to the Middle East and the world.
Since these goals are not going to be achieved any time in the forseeable future (perhaps in our lifetime), they are a complete contradiction of the Pentagon announcement in the OP. So we're left with a few possible interpretations: (1) There is a serious rift between the WH and the Pentagon on the subject of what constitutes valid grounds for withdrawing from Iraq; (2) the Pentagon announcement is meaningless but intended to placate those demanding a serious withdrawal over the short term (incl. many Republicans in Congress); (3) the WH current rhetoric is largely meaningless but designed to placate the war supporters.
I think the only way to make sense of the contradictions here is as follows: if it were up to Cheney and Rumsfeld, they would keep the military in Iraq in full force until those victory goals above were literally and completely achieved, which could mean decades if necessary. However, there is a political reality here, in that the American people, Republicans and Democrats, no longer seem to agree with the WH that these goals can be achieved with continued U.S. occupation. So we sit at a crossroads: will that political reality have any influence on the situation, and how much influence will it have?
That question is still unanswered. At least we now now as the OP shows, that there are people in the Pentagon, who perhaps quietly and anonymously, agree with Murtha.