Saturday, July 15, 2006
Report RhetIraq: From GAO - An Incomplete Plan for Victory in Iraq
Who: Governement Accountability Office (GAO)
Source: GAO
Quotes: From GAO-06-788 report issued July 11, 2006 titled, "Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help Achieve U.S. Goals"
The November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and supporting documents incorporate the same desired end-state for U.S. stabilization and reconstruction operations that were first established by the coalition in 2003: a peaceful, united, stable, and secure Iraq, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism. However, it is unclear how the United States will achieve its desired endstate in Iraq given the significant changes in the assumptions underlying the U.S. strategy. The original plan assumed a permissive security environment. However, an increasingly lethal insurgency undermined the development of effective Iraqi government institutions and delayed plans for an early transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqis. The plan also assumed that U.S. reconstruction funds would help restore Iraq’s essential services to prewar levels, but Iraq’s capacity to maintain, sustain, and manage its rebuilt infrastructure is still being developed. Finally, the plan assumed that the Iraqi government and the international community would help finance Iraq’s development needs, but Iraq has limited resources to contribute to its own reconstruction, and Iraq’s estimated future needs vastly exceed what has been offered by the international community to date.
The NSVI is an improvement over previous planning efforts. However, the NSVI and its supporting documents are incomplete because they do not fully address all the desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy. [...] the strategy falls short in three key areas. First, it only partially identifies the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq, including the costs of maintaining U.S. military operations, building Iraqi government capacity at the provincial and national level, and rebuilding critical infrastructure. Second, it only partially identifies which U.S. agencies implement key aspects of the strategy or resolve conflicts among the many implementing agencies. Third, it neither fully addresses how U.S. goals and objectives will be integrated with those of the Iraqi government and the international community, nor does it detail the Iraqi government’s anticipated contribution to its future security and reconstruction needs.
With input from DOD and State, we included in our assessment all the classified and unclassified documents that collectively define the U.S. strategy in Iraq. Collectively, these documents still lack all the key characteristics of an effective national strategy. However, we refined our recommendation to focus on the need to improve the U.S. strategy for Iraq.
Prior to the fall of 2005, the U.S. stabilization and reconstruction effort in Iraq lacked a clear, comprehensive, and integrated U.S. strategy. State assessments and other U.S. government reports noted that this hindered the implementation of U.S. stabilization and reconstruction plans.
The November 2005 NSVI represents the results of efforts to improve the strategic planning process for the challenging and costly U.S. mission in Iraq. Although the NSVI is an improvement over earlier efforts, it and the supporting documents are incomplete. The desired end-state of the U.S. strategy has remained unchanged since 2003, but the underlying assumptions have changed in response to changing security and economic conditions, calling into question the likelihood of achieving the desired end-state. Moreover, the collective strategy neither identifies U.S. or other
resources needed to implement the objectives nor does it address its integration with the efforts and funding plans of the Iraqi government or the international community. The formation of the new Iraqi government provides an opportunity to the United States government to reexamine its strategy and more closely align its efforts and objectives with those of the Iraqi people and other donors.
Source: GAO
Quotes: From GAO-06-788 report issued July 11, 2006 titled, "Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help Achieve U.S. Goals"
The November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and supporting documents incorporate the same desired end-state for U.S. stabilization and reconstruction operations that were first established by the coalition in 2003: a peaceful, united, stable, and secure Iraq, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism. However, it is unclear how the United States will achieve its desired endstate in Iraq given the significant changes in the assumptions underlying the U.S. strategy. The original plan assumed a permissive security environment. However, an increasingly lethal insurgency undermined the development of effective Iraqi government institutions and delayed plans for an early transfer of security responsibilities to the Iraqis. The plan also assumed that U.S. reconstruction funds would help restore Iraq’s essential services to prewar levels, but Iraq’s capacity to maintain, sustain, and manage its rebuilt infrastructure is still being developed. Finally, the plan assumed that the Iraqi government and the international community would help finance Iraq’s development needs, but Iraq has limited resources to contribute to its own reconstruction, and Iraq’s estimated future needs vastly exceed what has been offered by the international community to date.
The NSVI is an improvement over previous planning efforts. However, the NSVI and its supporting documents are incomplete because they do not fully address all the desirable characteristics of an effective national strategy. [...] the strategy falls short in three key areas. First, it only partially identifies the current and future costs of U.S. involvement in Iraq, including the costs of maintaining U.S. military operations, building Iraqi government capacity at the provincial and national level, and rebuilding critical infrastructure. Second, it only partially identifies which U.S. agencies implement key aspects of the strategy or resolve conflicts among the many implementing agencies. Third, it neither fully addresses how U.S. goals and objectives will be integrated with those of the Iraqi government and the international community, nor does it detail the Iraqi government’s anticipated contribution to its future security and reconstruction needs.
With input from DOD and State, we included in our assessment all the classified and unclassified documents that collectively define the U.S. strategy in Iraq. Collectively, these documents still lack all the key characteristics of an effective national strategy. However, we refined our recommendation to focus on the need to improve the U.S. strategy for Iraq.
Prior to the fall of 2005, the U.S. stabilization and reconstruction effort in Iraq lacked a clear, comprehensive, and integrated U.S. strategy. State assessments and other U.S. government reports noted that this hindered the implementation of U.S. stabilization and reconstruction plans.
The November 2005 NSVI represents the results of efforts to improve the strategic planning process for the challenging and costly U.S. mission in Iraq. Although the NSVI is an improvement over earlier efforts, it and the supporting documents are incomplete. The desired end-state of the U.S. strategy has remained unchanged since 2003, but the underlying assumptions have changed in response to changing security and economic conditions, calling into question the likelihood of achieving the desired end-state. Moreover, the collective strategy neither identifies U.S. or other
resources needed to implement the objectives nor does it address its integration with the efforts and funding plans of the Iraqi government or the international community. The formation of the new Iraqi government provides an opportunity to the United States government to reexamine its strategy and more closely align its efforts and objectives with those of the Iraqi people and other donors.
