John Yetter, who comments here as "Old Soldier" has some thoughts on that subject:
The Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Time Lined or Condition Based
By John H. Yetter, CW5, U.S. Army (Retired)
Lately there has been quite a bit of discourse concerning whether our national strategy for victory in Iraq should be condition based or time lined. The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq written by the National Security Council in November is condition based and has come under fire for not being; detailed enough and time based with defined milestones. I have read the document and find it to be very detailed with very clearly defined milestones (or mill posts as some prefer). The discourse seems wholly focused upon the Democrat?s demand for a time based plan rather than accept the plan as condition based.
Let?s view this issue using program management as a mechanism. Each complex program has many milestones and for measurement and budgetary controls is usually time lined. In simplistic form the program is made up of elements or events that may be sequential and/or concurrent to other related events. Milestones are established as markers for funding or decisions or both. All complex programs have internal and external impactors that will affect the ability to complete events as scheduled.
In my 37 years associated with the U.S. Army, I have yet to see a new aviation weapons platform program advance and complete on the original schedule. Program progress is impacted by many drivers such as new technology, a change in the anticipated employment or mission configuration, a shortfall of funding necessary to keep the schedule, etc., etc. Considering such, I have not known of a program to be cancelled or a program manager replaced because a program slipped (required a schedule adjustment). Programs have been cancelled for other reasons; usually to redirect funds to higher priority programs.
The long and the short of it is that the time element of the program is absolutely meaningless for anything other than planning. Events are the true drivers for programs. Events must be completed rather than a scheduled amount of time elapsed. In fact, Army program management acknowledges that programs are actually "event driven". Efforts are made to try to keep programs on a schedule, however, schedule adjustments are regularly made as required to accommodate the required events.
Events are basically conditions; once an event is completed than a condition is satisfied. The completion of all the programmed events satisfies all the conditions necessary for program completion. In other words, the program is completed because all conditions have been met, not because the scheduled has been kept. In reality a program could be successfully managed by condition based milestones and done expeditiously providing all the necessary resources are concentrated on the program.
The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq could have very easily have been laid out on a time line rather than conditions; however one key word in the title precludes doing so. In this case "Strategy" refers to a national strategy to win a military and political victory over an enemy. That being the environment, it would be irresponsible to divulge a timeline to our enemy for very obvious reasons. The strategy set forth by the National Security Council is very detailed and quite attainable. It lays out a very clear plan with milestones and conditions by which victory can be achieved. It just as clearly denies the enemy any time line that can be used against us.
The only conceivable intention for demanding a time based plan versus accepting the detailed condition based plan is to have a means by which to criticize any failures to meet the schedule. After enough time lines are missed and/or moved I would anticipate shrill rhetoric about program failure to dominate political campaigns. Discontent can be fomented among the populace to assist in shifting political power. Demands could be made to unconditionally withdraw; culminating in a Vietnam scenario instead of a democratic representative republic in Iraq. National security demands more than partisan politics. This is not a war that we can lose without dire consequences that will impact our children?s freedom, liberty and their very way of life. Do you condone your children being required to chant, "Allah?ho Ackbar ? Allah?"
Old Soldier's previous contributions to Mike's America include:
It's National Security Stupid! (His bio is included at the end)
America, Do Not Lose Heart Again (which we borrowed from Confederate Yankee).
No comments:
Post a Comment