In my non-virtual life, I am a librarian. Recently I was struck by the article CIP on the Moon. In it John Celli quotes noted business writer Michael Porter on the difference between management / operations / how we do things and leadership/strategy/ why we do things. While I wrote up the library related aspects on my blog, I post my political thoughts here - so here goes.
Since this administration started the run up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, we have been fed reports every six months about how well things are going. New sets of tactics (called strategies, but really operational) have been rolled out regularly to great acclaim. New types of counter-insurgency ops would make a difference. Funding local warlords would strengthen democracy. Holding elections would make all the difference (ignoring the truism - one man/one vote / one time). This is made even more opaque when the military refers to mission. Libraries/ churches / organizations / businesses may have a mission which defines them, lets them know what success is and keeps them true to their origins.
It is in the sense that our Mission / Strategy in Iraq is a failure. Not that our troops (including my sons) don't do their best, follow orders and act in the best tradition of their services, but that there is a failure right at the top, at the strategic level.
In The Pentagon's New Map, Thomas PM Barnett details his A-Z roadmap for dealing with failed regimes. I believe that if this administration had followed something close to this as a strategy, we might well have obtained a worthy result in Iraq. Too bad you go to war with the political leaders you have, instead of those you want.
Sadly, this administration followed more of an Alpha to Omega strategy, one which intersects Barnett's at at least one point (invade Iraq and depose Saddam), but diverges from it just about everywhere else. No coalition building, no buy-in from regional players, no broad based reconstruction effort, no concern for security until the situation was chaotic and beyond repair, no consideration of local conditions, too much emphasis on US political considerations.
This demonstrates the importance of proper grand strategy. When you are aiming at the right target, even a near miss is effective. You can correct your aim and sight in on the target. When you are aiming at the wrong target, even a bullseye is not helpful. Mid-course corrections and adjustments just keep you on the wrong road. No matter how long we continue to pursue this current flawed strategy, no matter how effective the operations are, we are just wasting blood and treasure and time, none of which we can afford to spare.
Only a new strategy can retrieve the situation. More troops, more payouts to local warlords, more technology, more kinetics - even taken together they do not equal a change in strategy. They are just reinforcing failure, something that this administration has turned into an art form.
The American public recognizes this, without being able to articulate it. They know things are headed in the wrong direction, without being able to specify the right direction. It is one reason that Iraq is not in the forefront of discussion any more. It is a rear view decision. It was a mistake. We need to disentangle ourselves. More of the same isn't an option, even if it were possible, which it isn't.