Iraq Plan

Darfur Plan

charity - captivating thoughts. i appreciated your clarification on goals vs. objectives - if only others would think through things as well...the world would be a lot less confusing.

charity - captivating thoughts. i appreciated your clarification on goals vs. objectives - if only others would think through things as well...the world would be a lot less confusing.

Perhaps at the end of your commentary you've hit on why the politicians stick with goals and do not articulate objectives. Objectives allow the voters to hold them accountable, and what savy politician would allow himself/herself to be put in that position? Is that too cynical?

Sounds right to me. Why would you create a situation in which you are hostage to your own words instead of allowing wriggle room? This way you can't be held to account.

Sounds like no one at the white house has ever taken any management classes, or forgotten what they learned in them (or perhaps are just bad managers?): we learned this goals vs. objectives stuff this semester in my management of information agencies class...

i had the same thoughts about not being held accountable but wondered (1) if Congress had the authority to force the President to give measurable objectives and withhold appropriations until it was done and (2) the President isn't looking for re-election, so is all of this to save the butt of the Republican party?

Well-stated, Charity. Surely someone from the White House has created measurable objectives, right? From an education standpoint, I completely understand the necessity of measurable standards. Good teachers tell students exactly what is expected of them and then grade accordingly (rubrics are key). Seems like governments should run on the same principles.

Am I the only dissenter? I apologize, but I am too passionate about this to let it pass.

Charity, I contend that our objectives are appropriate to match the goals that we have for our service in Iraq. We are in a situation in which the success is determined by varying factors. There ARE concrete objectives, but our President and his Generals/officers on the ground understand that success in these more tangible objectives does not define success overall. For example, the President could have listed specific objectives like the building of x number of new schools, the improvement and installation of x number of water treatment facilities, the securing of x number of oil pipelines, etc. He could also point to specific objectives such as the capture of Saddam, the election of a constitutional committee, the approval of a constitution, the election of a permanent government, etc. While each of these is important and demonstrative of the success that we are having in Iraq, none of these DEFINE success in terms of our ultimate goal. We are pledged to the people and government of Iraq. When they are ready for us to withdrawal, we will. When they are ready to govern themselves, we'll let them. When their security forces are trained, tested, and adequate; they won't need us. How can any of those goals be measured by objectives as you have described? After next week's elections your concerns of measured success will require the answer to a yes or no question: "Mr. President of Iraq and honorable members of this representative government, do you yet require the active duty service of the United States military?" As LONG AS the answer is "'yes, please", we'll stand with them. As soon as the answer is "no, thank you", we'll bid them "Adieu." That is the standard.

The President has made this clear. The President made this clear before we elected him the second time. He is OUR President (no matter your vote) and in a representative Republic (not a democracy) the President does not OWE us any explanation. He is the executor of the will of the people as defined by the House and the Senate. He has bent over backward to explain, with great detail, the importance, the success, the plan, the promise, and as much of the strategy (way, way too much in my opinion) as he believes reasonable. Our duty as citizens is not to demand an explanation (nor to expect one) whenever our troops are at war. Before the deployment and after the victory (unless the Democrats have their way) we will be able to evaluate the successes and failures, but during the battle; Americans don't squabble, Americans don't argue over associated policy decisions, Americans don't tell the enemy ANY of our plans. Instead, we salute the flag and the country that we love and we march to victory as ONE nation....

Wally, no need to apologize for being passionate. :)

A couple of thoughts I had... One, I don't think meeting all of one's objectives can necessarily define success, rather that they are indicators of progress and achievement.

Two, I don't think that being a representative government means that the President (or any other elected official) doesn't have a responsibility of informing their constituencies on what they're doing and why (especially when it comes to the lives of soldiers and their families). What a representative government does mean is that we don't vote every time a decision is made; we've given power to other people to make those decisions. The reason there are checks and balances in our system of government is so that each branch is held accountable for their actions, with one of those checks being the voters. How do voters make an informed decision, if they are not given any measurement as to how far we should be and how far we are and the reasons for the discrepencies (there may be very legitimate reasons for falling behind in objectives, I just want to know what they are)? You would not find a "no explanation needed" policy in any other institutional situation, whether it be a corporation, school, etc.

But part of your argument is that this is a special case, because we are at war. So, while there are measurable objectives given and presented for the No Child Left Behind program, we should not expect this for a war. I think there's some legitimacy to the argument that we don't want the enemy to know our plans. My response would be, I'm not asking for a battle plan, I'm asking for objectives in setting up things like infrastructure (water, electricity, roads), which are general knowledge. Also, it will be very difficult to come to a point to say "we have won the war" because though we have capturing their leader, we are still fighting insurgents. Thus to wait for critique and assessment by Americans until that period would seem irresponsible. This critique and assessment should be as informed as possible. But I would say that without any sort of measurable objectives to measure, it makes that assessment even more difficult.

In response to the President's responsibility:

Originally, in the U.S., Presidents were not elected by the people (or the electoral college.) Presidents were to be appointed by the elected officials. This mindset (though the process is altered) remains. The President is responsible to the Congress and the Congress is responsible to the constituents. In the case of war in Iraq, Congress authorized our President to go to war (October 2002)...with no strings attached. He was not required to report back to the Congress when he made the decision to act. He was not asked to outline any objectives, plans, or timelines. He was given complete executive authority on one, and only one condition: Saddam's failure to comply with the most recent resolution of the UN security counsel. If anyone should be called out, it is the Congress. (Personally, I am very pleased with the original authorization and the more recent rejection of a legislative call for a timeline.) If there is blame to be placed for lack of clarity or irresponsibility in the dissemination of information, Congress bears that blame. They could have issued the wartime authorization with a specific duration. They could have allowed initial action, with a required follow-up/report process by the President. Thankfully and rightly, no one even brought it up.

So, I do not have a "no explanation needed" approach to government, but I do hold believe that the President does not owe ME an explanation. If I need an explanation, I can make a phone call or send an e-mail...to Specter (even though he doesn't care what I think :-) or Santorum who represent me in the Senate. The President's explanations are due to Congress.

I think I posed the question at one point as to whether or not Congress had the authority to request those objectives or not. I think, in general, Congress isn't held accountable for their actions. It's really frustrating for me to hear they think the war is a mistake but don't tak responsibility for authorizing it.