One of the hallmarks of the Iraq adventure has been the lack of a coherent strategy and an almost wishing that events in Iraq would fit the pre-war template of liberators etc. Policy informs strategy which informs tactics. The lack of strategy has contributed to the conditions in Iraq. Via Belgravia Dispatch, Zinni:

What has disappointed me is there hasn't been this debate on the strategy, on the policy, a regional strategy on policy, let alone an Iraq policy. We're, we're debating the tactics. The, the surge is a tactic. In what context is the surge? You can make an argument for a surge if you were going to withdraw, to cover the withdrawal, for example, or to contain, to reposition forces or to re-engage in a different way or a stronger way. And why we got caught up in the tactical debate, in my mind, is an indication that we don't understand what we want to do. What should our Middle East policy be? What should our policy be in terms of Iraq and, and the war against the extremists out there or the conflict against extremists? We seem to be strategically adrift, in my view.

From Fiasco:

Strategy, correctly formulated, shapes tactics. But tactics uninformed by strategy, or misinformed by an incorrect strategy, are like a car without a steering wheel: It may go somewhere, but probably not where its driver wants it to go.

Policy is not informing strategy, which means tactics are being pursued for domestic political reasons.

It is doubtful whether the Iraq adventure would have worked anyway, certainly not without the complete mobilisation of American national resources which was politically unachievable in the US anyway. But using it for domestic political strength, rather than a policy or strategy, is incompetent governance.

The shelves in American bookstores relating to politics over the last few years have become dominated by titles such "How to kill a liberal and get away with it", or "How to dice a conservative and serve them for dinner without wasting pepper". I often think when faced with all these sensationalist titles that the political section needs to be broken into extremist and moderate so I can avoid the rubbish.

I picked up the book Fiasco by Thomas Ricks recently. Despite its emotive title it is a scholarly work from a journalistic point of view, building its argument from interviews rather than appeals to academic, philosophical or doctrinal works. It could as easily have been titled; Errors of omission and commission in strategy and policy during the Iraq War. (more)