In someways it appears that the US administration is starting to treat the situation in Iraq as a "PROJECT". They are talking about setting up mutually agreed upon milestones for achieving "security" (forgive me for the "quotes". I just use them when way a word is being used by someone else doesn't match the way I would use it)
But it is curious to me that it has taken this long to get to the point where scope is being defined. As far as I can tell from comments made this morning, there is not agreement on what the milestones will be and there is still work to be done to flesh them out. Assuming that the US is taking the role of Project Manager/Owner's Representative, there will be some negotiation following that. To me this is the birth of the plan. From there, evaluating tactics and available resources to craft some set of workable assignments and sub-goals would be next. These of course would have some idea of the time required. Time can not be dismissed as it is a critical resource.
Then everybody would start to work the plan.
This approach sounds reasonable... and in this light it is reasonable to wait until the milestones are clear before committing to a schedule. I just wonder why it has taken a few years and more than a few lives just to get to the starting point.
PS: Note to W. When you state that not having (or at least not discussing) a Plan B is what "positive people do" you start to worry me greatly. Successful Project Management is all about mitigating risk. You don't get there by ignoring it.
