Ex Press Aid … Bush Misled … Really?

Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. On Iraq
Washington Post, May 28, 2008, Pg. 1, …Michael D. Shear

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated “political propaganda campaign” led by President Bush and aimed at “manipulating sources of public opinion” and “downplaying the major reason for going to war.”

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, there were three general courses of action available to the administration: maintain/sustain the status quo, incremental change or radical.

Maintaining/sustaining the status quo did not prevent 911 or likely the next 911. Access to weapons of mass effects by the usual suspects increases the risk to the U.S. of doing the same thing we’ve always done.

The higher the degree of change, the higher the risk as well as the rewards. I think most people could agree that war with Iraq could be classified as a radical change wether you agree or not with the decision. From this perspective, no one should have been misled of the risks associated with a major change.

Going to war? Take some auditors with you

Pentagon Auditors Cite Scant Staff, Wall Street Journal, May 28, 2008,
Pg. 2 …Yochi J. Dreazen

Defense Department auditors said they have been unable to oversee tens of billions of dollars in military spending because of manpower shortfalls, leaving the Pentagon “more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.”

Probably not a bad idea to include financial management, planning and oversight as an integral part of the operational plan.

Whole-of-government solutions

Unified Quest 2008– Army Future Game Enables an Interagency Examination of Future Security Challenges

The Army Future Game is the culminating event in the Unified Quest campaign of learning, which annually examines the most salient issues confronting the Army and our nation. From April 29 to May 9, 2008, nearly 400 military officers, government officials, and scholars gathered at the Army War College in Carlisle Barracks, Pa., to explore “building partnership capacity” as a potential key element in a future national security strategy. In designing “whole-of-government” responses to a variety of fictional, future crises, participants exchanged views, ideas and concerns in an invaluable, interdisciplinary forum.

Unified Quest 2009 will further expand opportunities for collaboration across the interagency community by applying innovative, interagency planning procedures to complex, future scenarios.

Great concept that needs the theory and methodology introduced on this weblog. The concept, “Whole-of-government” also know as: systems thinking, horizontal thinking, enterprise thinking, strategic thinking, and supply-chain management to name a few.

Memorial Day, May 5, 1866

“On May 5th, 1866, veterans and residents of Waterloo, New York, placed flowers on the graves at each of the town’s cemeteries to honor the local Soldiers and Sailors who had fallen during the Civil War. Proposed by a local pharmacist, Henry c. Welles’, the act of remembrance centered on his belief that while praising the living veterans of the Civil War, it was equally important to remember the patriotic dead. This tradition has grown for a century and a half- it is Memorial Day.”

“Let no ravages of time testify to the present or the coming generations that we, as a people, have forgotten the cost of a free and undivided republic. Upon the graves of our war dead rests not only the memories and the pride of valor past, but the hope and the vision of a better, more peaceful future.” — Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited the importance of remembering the cost of freedom in a Memorial Day message to the armed forces.

War, Peace, Stakeholders, Time, Power

“Tribe Helps Al-Maliki Win Control Of South” (Washington Times)…Rowan Scarborough, May 23, 2008, pg.1

Of all the tactical moves Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made in March to wrest control of southern Iraq from Shi’ite extremists, none was more important than his government’s meetings with tribal sheiks.

On his blog, A bit too convenient … Tom Barnett commenting on an article describing President Bush’s latest trip to the Middle East, identified his expectation that the Middle East may “be largely democratized no later than 2025.”

Barnett also speculates that “Bush calling Iran the equivalent of Nazi Germany is his way of signaling the White House’s pre-approval for any Israeli military strikes on his watch.”

Tribes continue to be a key “stakeholder” in bringing about stability in Iraq. Involving all stakeholders and applying NEW methods is just as critical for bringing about peace throughout the Middle East. If you always do what you always did on average, you’ll usually get what you always got.

Supporting information on this Weblog that represents a NEW approach include the following:

The Leadership Paradigm and Framework page outlines a method that would help to optimize the application of Smart Power by all elements of national power. Proper application of the framework includes identifying the role that “tribes” play in Iraq.

Regarding a context for the operational environment, I refer you to Tom Barnett’s strategic concept on the need for a Leviathan and Sys Admin Force in managing the threats associated with the “non-integrating gap.”

The Strategery pages helps illustrate the need to stratify application of the framework at the near, mid and long-term (2025) , e.g., different players at different levels working within different timeframes simultaneously working together to achieve a common aim.

The U-Think? page introduces the concept of prediction markets that may be a useful tool for engaging people (stakeholders) in assessing expected outcomes, e.g., do you agree with the projections of a more democratized Middle East in 2025?

And finally, The Manifesto and Connecting the Dots pages introduces a common language and direction for taking the kind of action that will have a higher probability of success than “the way we’ve always done it.”

Innovation – Military & Commercial

Despite SecDef Pleas, Pentagon Is Losing The Innovation War (National Defense)…Sandra I. Erwin, June 2008

Defense Secretary Robert Gates briefly grabbed the headlines last month when he challenged the Pentagon to “find more innovative and bold ways to help those whose lives are on the line.” He might just as well have asked for the moon.

Innovation is not just a challenge for the military. In December, 2004, the U.S. Council on Competitiveness reported that, “Innovation will be the single most important factor in determining America’s success through the 21st century . For the past 25 years, we have optimized our organizations for efficiency and quality. Over the next quarter century, we must optimize our entire society for innovation.”

One of the better books on Innovation I’ve studied is The Elegant Solution, by Mathew May. A summary provided at the following link: How does Toyota Do It?

Natl Defense Strategy – Documents

New National Defense Strategy Emphasizes More Iraq-Like Missions(Inside The Pentagon)…Jason Sherman, May 22, 2008, Pg. 1

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is set to approve a new strategy that calls for greater emphasis on irregular operations, solidifying in a key Pentagon planning document his recent public admonitions that the military services must shift their focus away from preparing for conventional fights against superpowers in favor of plans for more Iraq-like missions.

The two volumes — which sources say will be unclassified once approved — are two of six so-called “gold standard” planning documents, most of which are designed in close coordination with each other, that provide strategic direction for the Defense Department.

Last week, Gates approved two others — the Guidance for the Development of the Force and Guidance for the Employment of the Force. The Unified Command Plan and the Quadrennial Defense Review complete the Pentagon’s strategic planning library.

For the strategy nerds, Guidance for Development of the Force (GDF) replaces what was previously called Strategic Planning Guidance. GDF also replaces documents that include Transformation Planning Guidance, the Posture Guidance, the Science and Technology Strategic Guidance . GEF also consolidates documents that include Contingency Planning Guidance, policy guidance for the employment of nuclear weapons, and the Security Cooperation Guidance. (Ref: Gates Signs Planning Documents To Guide Investments, Operations REF: Inside The Pentagon May 15, 2008, Pg. 1 Jason Sherman

Iraq: Endgame and Strategic Patience

Gates Says Iraq ‘Endgame’ In Sight (Wall Street Journal (wsj.com))…Agence France-Presse, May 21, 2008

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday the “endgame” is now in sight in Iraq but warned of the costly consequences of withdrawing U.S. forces too hastily.

“I fear that frustration over slow progress and dismay over sacrifices already made may result in decisions that are gratifying in the short term but very costly to us in the long term,” he said.

We are now seeing what the end game in Iraq looks like – with our forces drawing down over time, in a series of very complex battlefield rearrangements that slowly cede more responsibility for day-to-day security operations to the Iraqis,” the prepared remarks said.

“It is a slow process – slower than most would wish, myself included,” he said. “But it is necessary if we are to get the endgame right.”

Iran: Diplomacy vs. Military

Petraeus: Diplomacy, Not Force, With Iran
(Washington Post)…Karen DeYoung, may 22, 2008, Pg.9

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, President Bush’s nominee to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, supports continued U.S. engagement with international and regional partners to find the right mix of diplomatic, economic and military leverage to address the challenges posed by Iran.

Challenge is always applying the right mix of diplomatic, economic and military leverage. Information element of power (media) another instrument of power that plays a critical role in influencing events.

Iraq: Leveraging Power

Why U.S. Must Pull Out Of Iraq (Boston Globe)…Sean E. Duggan, May 22, 2008

An unconditional and open-ended military commitment to a dysfunctional and sectarian Iraqi government will not bring about true national reconciliation, which is necessary to capitalize on what temporary security and political gains have been made.

Rather, this commitment forfeits what little leverage the United States has left: the ability to extract political compromises from a status quo Iraqi government by presenting it with a credible threat of a US withdrawal if concessions are not made and implemented.

Adds a perspective on the potential to leverage the military instrument of power in bringing about political reform.