A Timeline For Withdrawal In Iraq Is Not A Threat To Success
At a town hall meeting in a Florida retirement community, Senator and Presidential Candidate John McCain pointed out that he would like a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Governor Mitt Romney has also stated that he too would support a timetable, but neither candidate has given much useful detail beyond that in public. Obviously, many people believe that the publication of a timetable is not prudent since it would somehow provide our enemies with the critical information they need to defeat us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A timetable simply implies that on the road to a goal, a certain number of key milestones must be reached in a particular order and within a reasonable amount of time. In other words, a specific plan must be completed in a timely manner. These are usually best estimates given that no one can predict the future, and when unexpected events take place or the situation changes, the timetable/plan can be reasonably adjusted—or abandoned altogether should it be warranted.
People in the United States are most concerned with a time table for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. However, time tables would need to be developed for Iraqi civilian governments at the national and local levels and that include milestones not only for the formation of governments, but also for the provision and control of basic public health and safety services. Given the critical role of the Iraqi National Police in counterinsurgency, a specific timetable should be put in place for them as well.
Making this a bit more complicated, all of these timetables would have to be closely coordinated in order to support a viable national counterinsurgency strategy. Since no one could possibly address all of Iraq’s issues simultaneously and across all locations, the development of military security forces would have to be coordinated with the development of working local governments. In other words, a strategic plan would be required, and this would be supported by tactical plans at the local level—each with its own measurable milestones and goals.
It is these tactical plans and their individual details that must be kept from the enemy. It does the enemy no good to know that at the national level, we plan to have a specific number of Iraqi military and police units trained and replacing US units by a certain date. This is especially the case if the enemy is uncertain about which types of units we are training, how many of each type, where we are training them, or how long it will take. The picture becomes even more confusing to the enemy when they have to sift through our simultaneous efforts to create working national and local governments and police forces. Again, knowing the national level milestones and their due dates without having access to the detailed tactical/local efforts does the enemy no good at all.
One thing is for sure, a high level timeline and measurable milestones can be developed that are no threat to the success of the war. Complicated or not, having meaningful and manageable milestones would certainly make a difference to voters here in the US.
A timetable simply implies that on the road to a goal, a certain number of key milestones must be reached in a particular order and within a reasonable amount of time. In other words, a specific plan must be completed in a timely manner. These are usually best estimates given that no one can predict the future, and when unexpected events take place or the situation changes, the timetable/plan can be reasonably adjusted—or abandoned altogether should it be warranted.
People in the United States are most concerned with a time table for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. However, time tables would need to be developed for Iraqi civilian governments at the national and local levels and that include milestones not only for the formation of governments, but also for the provision and control of basic public health and safety services. Given the critical role of the Iraqi National Police in counterinsurgency, a specific timetable should be put in place for them as well.
Making this a bit more complicated, all of these timetables would have to be closely coordinated in order to support a viable national counterinsurgency strategy. Since no one could possibly address all of Iraq’s issues simultaneously and across all locations, the development of military security forces would have to be coordinated with the development of working local governments. In other words, a strategic plan would be required, and this would be supported by tactical plans at the local level—each with its own measurable milestones and goals.
It is these tactical plans and their individual details that must be kept from the enemy. It does the enemy no good to know that at the national level, we plan to have a specific number of Iraqi military and police units trained and replacing US units by a certain date. This is especially the case if the enemy is uncertain about which types of units we are training, how many of each type, where we are training them, or how long it will take. The picture becomes even more confusing to the enemy when they have to sift through our simultaneous efforts to create working national and local governments and police forces. Again, knowing the national level milestones and their due dates without having access to the detailed tactical/local efforts does the enemy no good at all.
One thing is for sure, a high level timeline and measurable milestones can be developed that are no threat to the success of the war. Complicated or not, having meaningful and manageable milestones would certainly make a difference to voters here in the US.

1 Comments:
In almost every major organization timetables are instituted as a measure of accountability and checks and balances. Timetables needn't be set in stone to be effective, but be managed and closely monitored by designated personnel to avoid complacency and ensure goals are met with successful outcomes. MO
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home