according to the document, a victory is defined as when we achieve the short-term, medium-term and long-term goals. one of the long-term goals when we have created "a Iraq that has defeated the terrorists[.]" i guess there is some ambiguity of what "defeating the terrorist" exactly means, but taken literally, it suggests a goal of eradicating all terrorism.
terrorism has always existed and will always exist. i'm not happy about it, but that's simply reality. throughout recorded history there have been people who were willing to target civilians for political or military gain. saying that we will win the war in iraq when there is no terrorism is another way of saying we will never win the war in iraq.
now maybe i'm taking it too literally. maybe "defeating the terrorists" just means defeating the groups that are currently terrorizing iraq. the problem is, it's not entirely clear who all of those groups are, or even how many there are. so that interpretation isn't a reasonable benchmark either.
in fact, the entire document is kind of hollow. it is dressed up as a plan with concrete goals, but the details are all incredibly fuzzy and open to wildly different interpretations.
here's an example, check out page 11 (page 14 of the pdf document) under the heading "WHY OUR STRATEGY IS (AND MUST BE) CONDITIONS-BASED" the document solemnly declares:
Success in the short, medium, and long run will depend on progress in overcoming these challenges and on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Our strategy – along the political, security, and economic tracks – is establishing the conditions for victory.fair enough, but what are those conditions of victory that mark our progress? things like "Progress in the Iraqi political process and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to forge political compromises." what kind of benchmark is that? is there any way to measure it?
and what about this other condition: "Continued support of the American people"? recent polls suggest the american people no longer support the effort in iraq--at least a majority want a withdrawal of u.s. forces. does that mean we've already lost that one? or does "support" mean something other than that? in fact, this bullet point is completely ambiguous. you can't have a "condition-based" strategy unless the conditions are crystal clear. without clear and achievable conditions, it's not "condition-based." instead we have a list of bullet points that have about as much content as a marketing executive's powerpoint presentation.
a document that says that victory will not be achieved until specific goals are reached and then sets forth only fuzzy ambiguous goals, is another way of saying that victory never be achieved. nothing lasts forever; some day u.s. forces will leave iraq no matter what happens. this document is guaranteed to be a great resource for anti-american critics to argue that the iraq war was a loss for the u.s. once that inevitable pullout happens.
