Letters to the Editor
-
How about a real plan?
Maybe I've worked in business too long, but where I work when people talk about plans and timelines, those always refer to specific deliverables and measures.
Throughout the entire discussion of the Iraq situation, I don't believe that I have ever heard anyone discuss an actual plan. I've heard a lot of rhetoric. I've heard a lot of ideas. But so far I have not seen a single plan.
When Mr. Conason says "All the plans the Democrats have offered on Iraq rely on wishful thinking. Here's one that might actually work" -- he's not talking about a plan. He's talking about an idea. Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it could form the basis of a plan. But it's not a plan. When we call things "plans" that really aren't, it cheapens the word to the point that it becomes meaningless.
When people say things such as "when the Iraqis stand up, we will be able to stand down," what exactly does that mean? What does that translate into in terms of actual measures, milestones, and deliverables? Does "standing up" mean that attacks and bombings are reduced to a certain frequency? Does it mean that a certain number of Iraqi batallions can operate on their own? The president's idea (idea, not plan) seems to be that we will continue to do what we are doing, and then eventually things will be "better." But what does "better" mean from an operational viewpoint? How do we measure "better?" Without some understanding of that, how would we know that ANY plan were successful?
We do see occasional pieces of a plan. For example, the elections are a kind of plan. That's good. We know what comes first, second, third, and so on. The results might not be what we hoped for, but at least we know when something has been done.
So I'm still waiting for a plan. Any plan. We have enough ideas already.