The White House has released a 38-page document outlining the strategy for victory in Iraq, available for download here. I have not had the time to read the entire document, but I have pulled a few choice excerpts from it.

There is a great deal regarding who the enemy in Iraq is and what they want. This strategy manual divides the enemy in to three main groups; rejectionists, Saddamists, and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaida. Making the point that these three groups seek different goals but also coordinate attacks, the document makes mention of their methods to intimidate the Iraqi population into submission.

The rest of the document pertains to the strategy in brief on how to accomplish the goals of bringing stability to Iraq, much of which has been mentioned before. Apparently the White House feels the need to release the information in a downloadable PDF file for the information to sink in. In short, the three tracks towards victory are political, economic and security. These of course have been the same three tracks for over two years as well.

Upon hearing the news such a document was to be released, I was concerned it would go too far in depth and give too much to the enemy. It does not and is more or less what has been said over the course of three years written down.

Anyways, because the document is what should have already been known by all ITB readers, I will not rehash it in full. If you choose to read it, and it may be worth the perusal, download the PDF here (right click, save file as).

The full text of President Bush’s speech can be found here, where he goes more in depth than the document.

Democrats charged the speech and document were much of the same, and the document was without question, but one Democratic Senator charged President Bush did not “acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency.”

“No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins,” Kerry said, referring to a passage in Bush’s speech. “No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We’re talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That’s the choice here. And what the president did not do today again is acknowledge the fundamental reality of the insurgency.” (source)

Naturally Senator Kerry didn’t bother telling us what the “fundamental reality of the insurgency is,” and I get the impression he hasn’t bothered to read the document released which does detail who we are fighting in Iraq. Senatory Kerry is also wrong in saying “”No one has ever suggested or believes that we should run in the face of car bombers or assassins.” The words by the retreat group are not to run in the face of terrorists, but it is a comprehensive cut and run advocacy. It just so happens we are fighting against car bombers, suicide bombers and assassins. How Kerry does not differentiate between the two defies logic, but so does much of what he has said over his entire Senatorial career.

Nancy Pelosi, who adovocates an immediate withdrawal, also chimed in saying the speech and document are too much of the same. What though does a moderate Democrat say regarding both?

But Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) called the speech “a step in the right direction” that “begins to address the Senate’s call for a successful exit strategy with measurable benchmarks.” He said, “I look forward to hearing more, including information about the specific benchmarks we expect to achieve, and when we expect to achieve them.” (source)

It is quite striking that the same crowd which charges President Bush is arguing much of the same will lash out against rhetoric implicating they wish to retreat with a white flag, but that’s precisely what they argue when they call for immediate withdrawal. Not seeing the progress that has happened in Iraq is either failing to actually pay attention or politics as usual. I tend to believe the latter.

As we’ve outlined numerous times on this site, there is progress made in Iraq. President Bush touched upon some of that progress in his speech, but he left much of it out. The progress of bringing Democracy to Iraq in less than three years is a remarkable achievement in itself, one which took much longer in other war-torn regions. In fact, Bosnia still doesn’t have a sovereign, Democratic government and there are still insurgent attacks.

Update:

More Kerry hillarity.

Kerry also criticized Bush for using a military audience as a “backdrop” for his speech. “It reminds you of an aircraft carrier and ‘Mission Accomplished,’” Kerry said, noting that while he (Kerry) can’t summon the Naval Academy as a backdrop — he can “summon the truth.”

But Kerry has summoned the help of the Navy to use as a backdrop for his political purposes. Somehow this is different than Senator Kerry using the backdrop of an aircraft carrier to announce his run for the Office of President or his repeated reminders he served this nation during some war, I forget which one.

Hat tip: Blogs for Bush who finds another strange Kerry quote concerning what soldiers in Iraq have reportedly told him. Why is it that every politician who has visited Iraq comes back reaffirming whatever their stance was prior to going over there, yet no one to my knowledge has any sort of an ephiphany?

Speed of Thought... linked with Round the Reader - Bovine Fart Edition..