Which is not to say that you shouldn't plan, and that planning includes goals and objective criteria that you intend to meet. Just that no battle plan ever survived contact with the enemy. Stabilizing Iraq in the face of Syrian, Iranian, Democrat Party and other inspired guerilla warfare and terrorism is definitely a battle plan.
Every time I hear some manicured Washington DC politician or bureaucrat spout off
I want to rip their $500 haicut depilated face-lifted head off and $#!+ down their neck.
Exactly. Actually I'd go farther and say it's far more complex than simple "battle" (which can usually be understood at least on a geographic level, and objective criteria are usually obvious). Here it's not obvious what objective criteria might be, or even if any exist, nor is the lay of the battlefield all that observable. This makes any/all "plans" orders of magnitude more likely to be DOA.
IMHO we need to stop constantly griping about "the Iraqis" and either commit to the military presence, and make the best of it ourselves (applying "benchmarks" and "timetables" to our own actions, if we really must), or not. This constant hinting at somehow linking the ongoing presence/commitment to Iraq's government meeting this or that "benchmark" is just a waste for all concerned. As we are seeing, trying to constantly apply "benchmarks" to a guy who is already viewed as our puppet, and thus walking a very tricky (and dangerous) tightrope, can only backfire and force him into the arms of our enemy.