Apparently, the RNC hasn't realized that I've switched parties. So they continue to send me Republican glurge, most of which gets filtered into my Spam folder by Cloudmark. Sometimes, before I empty my spam folder, I check out some of the e-mail I'm about to delete. Such was the case with this piece of garbage from Mehlman.
Speaking at the U.S. Naval Academy, President Bush laid out the plan for victory in Iraq. America's strategy is clear: we will help Iraqis build a stable democracy, a strong economy, and security forces that can defend the Iraqi people and fight the terrorists. And we will never give in to the enemy by cutting and running before the job is done.
Read the President's complete Strategy for Victory in Iraq here [link removed, see below], and write a letter to the editor to spread the word about the President's plan.
In Iraq, our troops' heroic work is paying off. Iraqis will soon vote in their third democratic election this year. Groups that boycotted earlier elections are joining the political process. On the security front, Iraqi troops and police are growing stronger and more ready to defend their country. Increasingly, Iraqis are taking the lead in joint operations to root out the terrorists. As Iraqi forces stand up, our troops' mission will shift away from patrolling Iraqi cities and towards hunting down the most dangerous terrorists.
In spite of the incredible progress made by our troops, some in Washington still are proposing artificial deadlines for withdrawal. This is not a plan for victory. Cutting and running would send a message to the terrorists that our will can be broken, inviting more attacks on our troops and on our homeland. It would tell our friends that America is a weak and unsteady ally. So long as George W. Bush is our President, America will never return to the dangerous, pre-September 11th illusion that the terrorists can be appeased by simply turning our backs.
In response to the President's clear plan, Democrats like minority leader Harry Reid offer empty political attacks, calling the President's speech "tired rhetoric" even before it was given. Yet these same Democrats agree with key elements of President Bush's strategy, with Sen. Joe Biden writing that "we must forge a sustainable political compromise between Iraqi factions, strengthen the Iraqi government and bolster reconstruction efforts, and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces." That sounds exactly like what the President is proposing. These Democrats fundamentally agree on what needs to happen in Iraq, but they're attacking for political gain. Are these attacks designed to help us win the war on terror, or help them win the next election?
President Bush offers a way forward on Iraq, not empty political posturing. Read the strategy and spread the word in your community.
Ken Mehlman Chairman, Republican National Committee
I also clicked on the link in the e-mail and read what Mehlman calls "the President's complete Strategy for Victory in Iraq." Not only is it not "complete," but it's also not even a "strategy."
As a marketing guy, I've had to write more strategic plans than I care to remember. Some things that each of these strategic plans had in common:
- Clearly-defined and quantified objectives
- A list of strategies that address each objective
- Tactics that support the strategies outlined
Click on the link, and see that the Bush strategic plan contains none of the above. Here are some of the objectives:
* Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces. * Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential. * Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Notice none of these things is clearly defined. Certainly, none of these is quantifiable. Moreover, not one has a timeline. If I tried submitting something like this to a client, they'd have a conniption and fire me on the spot.
Not to mention that the rest of the document more closely resembles Republican talking points, trying to link Iraq with 9/11. I could tear into this thing for a month and a half, but rather than expend my energies on this piece of garbage, I'd rather cast my vote for "This doesn't meet any definition of a strategy. Start over."