MS Project Comes to Iraq?

The next phase of the debate regarding the Iraq war & funding it.

The buzz phrase in round I was the weasel word redeployment (think Monty Python's Holy Grail: redeploy! redeploy! redeploy!. The buzzword in round II is benchmark. Redeploy was nothing but surrender and the Democrats did this for one reason and that was to show their blue meat leftists the state of things and to at least try to appear to surrender.

Benchmarks is a much more reasonable idea. Of course, it all depends on the exact meaning of benchmarks and the consequences of not achieving those goals. I believe the Administration does have milestones set for the Iraqi government and this entire project. This is going to be where the contention lies. Usually in war you do not get too specific or vocal in broadcasting your objectives, let the enemy find out what your objectives are after you have accomplished them.

What goals, what consequences for not meeting those goals, and what are the consequences of meeting those goals will the Democrats attempt to legislate? That is starting to sound like a Constitutional power grab.

I would guess the cliche about no plan is going to get louder and the Democrats are going to try and tell us their new funding bill lays out a winning plan. Anticipating this very debate I wrote a piece entitled On Plans & Planning. The political opposition confuses the enemy veto with lack of a plan. There is an active enemy working to disrupt any and all Coalition plans and that can not be discounted when analyzing former plans and creating future plans. How the enemy disrupts the plan is usually quite unknown.

The Iraqi War is a situation that requires flexibility and what may seem at the moment a reasonable benchmark, milestone, goal etc may in the future not just be unattainable but undesirable. The mandate to fix funding to benchmarks removes the flexibility our commanders need.

Think of it this way. Let us say the Packer defense plans to defend a run play going away from AJ Hawk. AJ Hawk (linebacker) detects the Bears are going to run a screen play to his side, what is AJ to do? Does he go with the plan or does he attack the screen he detects? The Democrats appear to be saying he had better go with the plan and potentially give up a lot of yards. Of course, AJ had better be correct.

A couple of thoughts. In WWII the objectives and campaign goals were roughly debated over. Not only within service branches, but between services, and nations. If congress decided to insert itself in all of that and attempted to make those goals widely known I shudder to think what would have happened.

On Plans & Planning

Too often we hear this group went into affair X without a plan.

Now, no doubt sometimes groups plan poorly or fail to implement according to plan but often times the above phrase is a substitute for the plan failed. Plans are bound to fail especially when dealing with situations where there is an opposition.

He had a plan and so too did Virginia Tech. However, his plan anticipated VT's plan and his plan worked. Doesn't mean no plan was in place.

It is a cliche to say no plan survives first contact with the enemy and it is cliche for a reason because it is so true. Sports competition should make this obvious. The plan was so perfect on the chalkboard or on the clipboard, but it did not work, why not? Did the players execute poorly? Perhaps, but even if they execute perfectly remember the opposition has a veto on the success of plans.

Now, many people will say well need to have a backup plan! Well, then it is possible to need plans A, B, C, D,....alpha, beta, gamma,...., aleph,.... Then you run into the idea he who plans for every possible contingent plans for nothing.

Best Information

When planning something that is going to be opposed you make plans based on best information available withing your time frame (obviously the information is going to be more accurate & abundant from 50 years from now but if you have to act by the end of next month you can not wait for fifty years to pass).

Backup Planning

Backup planning is necessary but becomes more problematic because then you are attempting to foresee the outcome of events with the initial plan. The information problem now becomes guesswork at least with respect to outcomes. So, you may have a number of backup plans but the initial plan fails because of a completely unforeseen set of circumstances and now instead of executing the backup plans you are either improvising or hurriedly making a new plan.

Improvised Action

Improvised action is not as bad as many would suppose. Our military depends on commanders being able to do this. A commander's aide walking the battlefield notes an unplanned for situation developing and then acts above his rank to make sure the situation is dealt with. A good example of improvised action is the defense of Little Round Top at the Battle of Gettysburg. They did not follow protocols or established plans; if they did the Battle of Little Round Top, Gettysburg, and perhaps even the US Civil War would have been decided differently.

Professional Basketball & Jazz are examples of improvised action. As long as the people involved are motivated, and capable of understanding the situations they are in, they should be able to respond in the correct manner. Does not mean it is easy or is always successful, but it is not perilous as it seems.

Plans for Unopposed Action

Plans for unopposed action have the benefit of not having someone actively trying to derail the plan, but contain all of the other unknowns. The possibility of knowing the risks and eventual outcomes is higher.

Making good backup plans is also more likely and the outcome of unopposed plans is more reliant on the proper plan design and implementation.

However, never ever confuse plans for opposed action to those for unopposed action.