Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The new definition is returning to civil society and rule of law by Iraqis, in order to keep most of the country out of the hands of Al Qaeda.

piercehawkeye45 has asked for the strategic objective. Keeping a country out of Al Qaeda's control is not a strategic objective just as 'search and destroy' and body counts were not strategic objectives.

Whereas creating a stable Iraq might be a strategic objective, details for that definition are required. That was an earliest point made even by Petraeus. We cannot win this war because we cannot accomplish the strategic objective. Or as one Captain so bluntly put it maybe one year ago: he could not win this war; he could only win battles.

That is the lesson from Nam. Americans won most every battle - and lost the war. American provided peace and safety in all major cities; and lost the war.

Also noted repeatedly was no phase four planning. What happens in the first six months following cessation of violence determines victory or defeat. Why? Again, what is the strategic objective - which is why phase four planning was so critical? What was in the second wave on D-Day? People to execute phase four planning.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What is winning the war in Iraq?

What is our strategic objective? Allies in WWII summarized that objective in a soundbyte called "unconditional surrender". What is that strategic objective in Iraq?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I seriously haven't heard a good definition.

One need only review Nam where major tactical victories resulted in a lost war. Or in Israel's two largest invasions of Lebanon (especially the last one) where major tactical victories resulted in no strategic victory. Israel did not even get back the kidnapped soldier. So what was their strategic objective? Why did bombing cities even in the most northern parts of Lebanon contribute to a strategic objective?

What is the strategic objective in Iraq? What details define a victory? Why has America entered "Mission Accomplished" without even first defining a strategic objective? Without a strategic objective, then victory cannot be achieved. It’s basic military doctrine. Achieving security in the cities? America did that in Nam where no strategic objective also existed. In Nam, a corrupt puppet government also was being protected. Sound familiar?