President's address and plan short on both bark and bite
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in War — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A delayed response due to the need for a lengthy cooling-off period.
President Bush addressed the nation last week, offering his long-awaited plan for a "new direction" in the Iraq conflict. However, despite taking an extra month to come up with this (presumably) superior plan, the President's speech – and the strategy it laid out – rang disappointingly hollow.
Laying aside the question of how many American troops gave their lives for what the President ostensibly knew to be the "wrong" plan (and wrong direction) in Iraq while he took his time coming up with the "right" plan (in the form of the new direction), the plan itself – and the dubious commitment to a foggy objective that it presents – is woefully short both on methods and on goals.
Read on . . .
Addressing the nation, as Haystack pointed out (and liberals noticed), with an appearance much more resembling a deer in the headlights than a confident wartime leader, President Bush acknowledged the obvious, saying, "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." He added, "it is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq," and called the situation "unacceptable" – but correctly maintained that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States."
As Haystack also noted, the language used by the President regarding the desired results was even less optimistic, as his usually colorful descriptions of "victory" were almost completely replaced with toned-down, almost plaintive references to the need to "succeed" in the current conflict.
The troops in Iraq have fought bravely indeed, willingly giving up their own lives for their mission and for each other, while wholeheartedly embracing the dangerous and deadly assignments with which they were tasked on a daily basis. However, since the quick and efficient taking of Baghdad, and toppling of the late Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party regime, the President’s "strategy" has been largely devoid of a clear, defined, coherent objective, and, as a direct result, the troops on the ground in Iraq have been suffering from the lack of a clear, defined mission.
Dutifully patrolling the same neighborhoods, taking the same fire, and being blown up in the same places by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) set by the same people has given the American military the appearance of conducting a daily mission in that country. However, that is virtually all that it has accomplished, aside from providing an ever-increasing body count, which now tragically sits at just over 3,000 young men and women.
If this new strategy did little more to establish a clear mission for our fighting men and women in Iraq, it did even less to establish a standard for success in the region. Just what the definition of "success" is – much like "victory" before it – remains as nebulous and unclear as ever. A timeline received lip service - if that is how you would refer to the promise to the insurgency that we will not leave until they are conquered, while threatening the Iraqi government that our commitment is not "open-ended" (meaning that we apparently will leave before the insurgency is defeated). Wrap your brain around that one. [note: Apparently Ramesh heard pretty much the same thing]
The President did speak of some short-term goals. Securing Baghdad is to be the highest priority. Provincial elections are to be held, although, with the admission that the 2005 national elections did not provide the expected galvanization of the warring population, it is difficult to see this as anything more than yet another symbolic gesture. Iraqi police and troops are to be trained more quickly, and are to have more American embeds to ensure that training and mission execution is effectively carried out. This is a worthy goal, to be sure; however, the speed with which Iraqis can take over the entirety of their national security – and the effectiveness with which they can do so, when so many in the growing security apparatus have very disparate allegiances – is uncertain to say the least.
The President did acknowledge that, in the past, "political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence." Pledging a change in the rules of engagement, he promised that, "this time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods."
A radical alteration of the ROEs is indeed necessary if America is to pursue a victory that includes successfully stamping out terrorism, murderous sectarian violence, and endless efforts to destabilize the elected Iraqi government. The mantle of political correctness, and the fear of media response and of "world opinion" has caused the administration and its leaders to relegate this conflict – like every major conflict since World War II – to a mythical "limited war," where there is no real use of American might, and where our enemies are allowed to use civilians as shields and churches as places of refuge, armed with the knowledge that we would rather let them escape and kill more troops and civilians another day, than risk the collateral damage or injured feelings that actually taking the fight to the enemy and seeking battlefield victory could result in.
While the President was filming an interview for 60 Minutes in which he was badgered into (sort of) admitting that his "decisions have made things unstable" in Iraq, Vice President Cheney, in his appearance on Fox News Sunday, did a much better job of explaining the importance of actually winning the war in Iraq, saying that "the most dangerous blunder would be if...we took all of that effort that has gone in to fighting the global war on terror and the great work that we have done in Pakistan, and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia…and saw it dissipated because the United States now decides that Iraq is too tough and we're going to pack it in and go home, ...[leaving] high and dry those millions of people in that part of the world that have signed on and supported US...in this global conflict."
Unfortunately, we are in danger of doing just that, due in part to the new direction's lack of direction (or method of achieving the missing objective), as well as to the apparent need of Congressional Democrats to oppose the President regardless of his course of action – even if it is a course which they themselves recently advocated.
One case in point is Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), who not long ago told Tim Russert that, above all, "we need more troops on the ground" in Iraq – then, in response to the President’s speech, which stated his intention to provide a "surge" of 21,500 more troops, came out against her own suggestion, penning a letter, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), in which she vehemently opposed sending any additional troops to Iraq, and asserted that "the proper course is to start withdrawing from Iraq," adding in remarks to the press that it is "time for the President to realize that his policy on the Iraq war is over."
The President's former policy is indeed "over," although the "new direction," on its face, does not seem to be very different from its predecessor. What was needed before, and appears to still be needed, is a clear objective and a definition of victory – both politically and militarily. Given that, and given the ability to operate without the superfluous restrictions of political correctness and excessive concern about "world opinion," it is possible that we could succeed, although success would also require a force of will, and a willingness to endure a lengthy conflict, which have heretofore been missing amongst the American public and her representatives.
However, should these be lacking, then victory – or even success – in Iraq has already been forfeited. If that is indeed the case, then America might as well concede the fight, bring her troops home, and docilely await the coming storm of terrorism and attacks on her homeland. For that is the greatest truth of the President's address: that an early exit from the region, leaving behind an unstable (or, more likely, chaotic) situation, would leave Islamic extremists, emboldened by the knowledge that America could be defeated, "in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions," and in possession of "a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people."
And that is not an acceptable outcome.
1) It takes time to raise new Army and Marine divisions, plus you need experienced officers and NCOs to lead them. Currently, we're using our experienced officers and NCOs, either with our own echelons or as advisors to Iraqis.
2) SECDEF Rumsfeld envisioned a smaller Army and Marine Corps, with a heavier reliance on airpower and SOF.
3) Army and Marine leadership were probably hesitant to ask for more troops, because military funding is a zero-sum affair. Money devoted to personnel is money not available for more equipment. And, our vehicle fleets are shot after Iraq. They'll need wholesale replacement/refurbishment--something that Congress might not be willing to fund, after spending huge amounts to bring new troops on line.
4) Rumsfeld and other politicians realized that our national debt and rising social welfare costs will soon consume much of the budget. Units we created now would likely be disbanded within a few years, as the demands of funding Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/etc... grow. Look at Great Britain. In order to fund their National Health System, they're trashing their Navy. (And they are an island nation!) I think DOD officials accepted reality. If the Congress is going to ditch the units eventually, why ask for them in the first place?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Laying aside the question of how many American troops gave their lives for what the President ostensibly knew to be the "wrong" plan (and wrong direction) in Iraq while he took his time coming up with the "right" plan
Oh, but you're not laying the question aside. You're raising, in a backhanded manner, the idea that the President is indifferent to the sacrifices of our soldiers. Not so fast. Do you think President Bush is indifferent to the pain our soldiers and their families are feeling. It seems that you're implying that he's unconcerned if they sacrifice their lives and health, by remarking that "he took his time coming up with the 'right' plan in Iraq." IMO this smacks of rudeness and disrespect on your part.
Addressing the nation, as Haystack pointed out (and liberals noticed), with an appearance much more resembling a deer in the headlights than a confident wartime leader,
As Haystack also noted, the language used by the President regarding the desired results was even less optimistic, as his usually colorful descriptions of "victory" were almost completely replaced with toned-down, almost plaintive references to the need to "succeed" in the current conflict.
I'm sorry, but neither John Wayne nor Ronald Reagan ran for President in either 2000 or 2004. George Bush did. He's certainly not the world's greatest communicator. But, if I had a choice between a President who's an empty suit but a great communicator (Bill Clinton) and one who's not a great speaker but is willing to make the tough decisions, I know which one I'll pick. Presidential elections aren't like a trip to Burger King. You don't get your President your way. I'm sure President Bush tried his best. Given the fact that most everyone is throwing rocks at him while he's trying to fight this Global War On Terrorism, I'm willing to cut him some slack in his on-camera appearance and the flashiness of the words he uses.
However, since the quick and efficient taking of Baghdad, and toppling of the late Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party regime, the President’s "strategy" has been largely devoid of a clear, defined, coherent objective, and, as a direct result, the troops on the ground in Iraq have been suffering from the lack of a clear, defined mission.
Not true. The mission has been clearly-defined, but it's a mission that is very hard to achieve and might take years to achieve. As the President has said again and again, we are working WITH the Iraqis to help THEM take control of THEIR country. We are in a supporting role. When we "quickly and efficiently" took Baghdad, we were conducting full-scale military operations that WE directed, at the times/places we wished. We also made all the decisions. Now, Iraq is sovereign and we have to work with them. As the old saying goes, it's always easiest to do things yourself. But, since the middle of 2003, that hasn't been the mission. The mission has been to help our Iraqi allies and partners help themselves.
Things would be a lot easier if we still ruled Iraq--do you propose we overthrow the goverment and install a viceroy?
A radical alteration of the ROEs is indeed necessary if America is to pursue a victory that includes successfully stamping out terrorism, murderous sectarian violence, and endless efforts to destabilize the elected Iraqi government. The mantle of political correctness, and the fear of media response and of "world opinion" has caused the administration and its leaders to relegate this conflict – like every major conflict since World War II – to a mythical "limited war," where there is no real use of American might, and where our enemies are allowed to use civilians as shields and churches as places of refuge, armed with the knowledge that we would rather let them escape and kill more troops and civilians another day, than risk the collateral damage or injured feelings that actually taking the fight to the enemy and seeking battlefield victory could result in.
A few observations:
- Exactly how do our field commanders prevent the enemy fromtaking civilians as hostages?
- "actually taking the fight to the enemy and seeking battlefield victory." Well, the "battlefield" in most places is the homes and neighborhoods of the innocent Iraqis we're trying to help. Yes, the Russians did eventually secure Stalingrad; too bad they destroyed it in the process.
Sir, I think your article is unfair to the President in many ways. It glosses over many of the constraints on the Bush administration and the policies it's tried. Yes, it would have helped if the President had sent more troops to Iraq, to allow our Army and Marines to hold the neighborhoods they'd just cleared. But, what extra troops? You can't send troops that you don't have.
Do you think there was some easy blueprint to follow when establishing peace in Iraq? Some pre-existing checklist that the President could simply follow. Many critics apparently think so. Me, I think that the President and DOD did the best they could to come up with the best plan they could, given the resources they had, the constraints they faced, and the fact that there wasn't (and still isn't) a clearly laid-out and easy-to-follow way to do this. In situations like this, the boss has to make the best judgement call he can. And sometimes, those calls don't work out as hoped. When that happens, all you can do is step back, regroup and then try again. Your essay strikes me as being rather dismissive of the challenges the Administration faced, and is thus in several ways unfair.
If you feel the President has let you and us down, that's your right. You're certainly free to dismiss my opinions of your essay. But, I suspect that there are no easy-and sure-fire policy options IRT Iraq. If they were, we'd have implemented them long, long ago. And, I'd have thought that we all--politicians, reporters, pundits--would have figured that out by now.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
about a good many things in this reply, I think there are two points worth mentioning.
"... the President and DOD did the best they could to come up with the best plan they could,..."
I don't complain so much about their plan as about their goals. They wanted a stable Iraq, and they wanted to be liberators instead of conquerors. The two are not compatible.
I don't give a darn about assigning blame; we had an election for that already. But I'm pleased to see the administration now has plans for handling this funadmental conflict - even if those plans include retreat if the Iraqi government won't cooperate.
"Given the fact that most everyone is throwing rocks at him while he's trying to fight this Global War On Terrorism..."
Now hold on. Is the war to stablize Iraq the same as the Global War on Terrorism? If we win there, will terror end? If instead they have a civil war, is that necessarily bad for us?
I agree we don't want to leave with our tail between our legs. That obviously would be bad, simply because our enemies would be heartened. But neither should we pretend a stable and free Iraq is the end-all and be-all.
The goal was and is a free, stable Iraq that is an ally in the War on Terror. Iraq is free and their people are overwhelmingly against al qaida. Iraqis increasingly have provided intell leading to dead al qaida incl zarqawi. Their armed forces kill al qaida. Even a sunni militia killed al qaida.
You have no problems with the above goals and actions, I'm sure.
And I'm sure you agree that we shouldn't abandon Iraqis like we did in 1991 before they can secure their nation and govt from enemies within, incl al qaida. And I'm sure you agree that the US should not leave a nation in chaos.
Conqueror? Since when did the US conquer?
I think what you really mean is that we haven't taken the gloves off, and I probably partially agree, if that is your real objection.
As to your second point, its obvious that a stable and free Iraq as an ally in the GWOT is a positive development in the GWOT. Its a battle in the GWOT. Much like our battles before ultimate victory in
Iwo Jima before Nagasaki in WWII
Cowpens, SC before crossing the Delaware in the revolution
Atlanta before Appomattox in the war of northern aggression
and Korea and Vietnam before Berlin fell in the cold war
surely had we won in Vietnam, the cold war would have been shorter
Securing a free and stable Iraq is crucial to this war. UBL and zawahiri have said so and their actions prove it. They have poured nearly all their resources into preventing a free Iraqi in their world. They know that would be a death blow.
They already face overthrowing every other nation but Iran in their plan. Add Iraq, an Iraq that is a base of the US all of Iraq and Afghanistan as a base and its devastating to their movement.
The resources they have expended in Iraq has prevented them from being used to attack us. Don't you know that if we were defending Texas, we would divert resources from offensive actions abroad?
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
"Things would be a lot easier if we still ruled Iraq--do you propose we overthrow the goverment and install a viceroy?"
I certainly do. While it would be nice to have a "stable and democratic" Iraq, in terms of the GWoT "stable" trumps "democratic" hands down. Of all the mistakes we've made, turning things over to sectarian Iraqis and corrupt civilian contracters too soon ranks with the worst.
and Muslim world brought us the first Gulf War, wahhabist SA, Iraq as a terror sponsor, Iran as a terror sponsor kingpin funding the Hezbos who killed more Americans that al qaida before 9/11, terror attacks on the US throughout the 90s and 9/11, a Pakistan appeasing terrorists, etc ad infinitum.
That kind of stable we can do without. We need to empower the moderate muslims who the overwhelming majority so they can prevent the takeover of the region by the extremists.
Its hard work. Its the hard work that is necessary to remain free.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
Posts deeply critical of this administration, even ones placed by conservatives, have a tendency to disappear around here.
thats not true and you know it. Or at least you would, if you were a regular.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
and although I am not quite so gloomy as you about the consequences of our departure from Iraq, I agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of your article. It took guts to post this, and I applaud you for that.
The president has, sadly, been in over his head for some time now. (Even he may have realized as much for I have just learned from 60 Minutes that GWB is presently reading a book recommended to him by Henry Kissinger, of all people, about the disaster France experienced in Algeria. That's some precedent. And it surely would have been nice if he had read such a book, as well as a few about Vietnam, before we invaded Iraq.) I deeply wish that things had come out much, much differently, and I wish I had not been in favor of the war, that I hadn't so unquestioningly supported the president.
But now we Republicans must face the reality of what has transpired over the past 6+ years and do what we can to rectify the numerous problems that have arisen. The country still very much needs the G.O.P. (and I am certain the Democrats will do some very stupid things -- because they always do). The early stages of this recovery will be painful and difficult, but the sooner we face reality the sooner the necessary processes can begin. Your article is a step in that direction. Thank you.
After all is said and done, I still believe that the American people are hyperventilating about this war and its costs both in lives and dollars, and because they've allowed people like Robert Kaiser to set the tone and shape their opinions, they've become unwilling to face reality, and now they have a perfect excuse for not doing so. Kaiser, BTW is now flatly calling Iraq = Vietnam and saying that it was a war of "choice" as he completes the closing of the book from his editorial desk at the Washington Post. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that is just one indication of how badly the collective press in this country is working to deliberately lead us straight to hell.
The reality appears to be that a "successful" outcome or a "victorious" outcome in Iraq is something that, as Henry Kissinger noted, is outside the timeframe that the political processes of the democracies prosecuting the war can stomach. Note: that they can stomach. Not what their societies could sustain. Not what their economies could manage. Not what their principles tell them they should be doing. Once again, the Left has won this war for the bad guys on the streets of Washington and San Francisco -- not in the heartland of America, and certainly not here on RedState, where I would absolutely be willing to accept an "open-ended" commitment in Iraq of another 5 or even 10 years if it meant that our objectives would be achieved.
Read that again. I would accept another five to ten years of this conflict at its present (or even at greater) cost if our presence would result in the achievement of our objectives. But enough Americans don't think this way. They don't realize that in a multigenerational struggle against people who think about destroying their enemies in time spans of centuries, 10 years of a relatively low-intensity war is nothing.
And I don't mean to minimize the sacrifice of our soldiers in Iraq. In fact, the real problem is that I know for a fact that people in Washington who write opinion pieces and who sit in bars yakking it up about the war are the same people who don't show up to events with the troops even after RSVPing.
Americans want to talk, and handwring, and dissemble -- not fight. We have no stamina and no perseverance, even though this war is not a drain on our country. We lost more than 3,000 men in the first ten minutes of D-Day, and even with a war in Iraq and Afghanistan our economy is as good as it ever has been. But for some reason Americans are looking for the exits.
They can close the door on Iraq, or at least they can delude themselves and listen to Sean Penn that decamping and returning to the United States will make us more secure over the next hundred years -- but when the bombs start going off in Times Square and in Los Angeles and in Detroit and Chicago and Houston and Miami and San Francisco and...
our enemies until they are defeated, even if it means everyday for the rest of my unborn grandchildren's' lives, until both ice caps melt and the blue states are under the oceans, or until Jesus comes (and, btw, Jesus said war and rumours of same would be reality until he comes-Jesus is better than Nostradamus) will preserve liberty.
Catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer.
But half-measures won't do it, whether it's 2 years or 200 years, and whether troop levels increase by 2% or by 200%.
The will to actually fight has to be there.
That if we're still in Iraq fighting a low-intensity war in 2017 it will have been worth it if by that time there is a quasi-functional state operating in parallel there. The really sick thing is that our "allies" around the world have not yet woken up to the fact that America has made all the sacrifices here, and would be willing to continue to make them, if there were even some vestigial streak of integrity and gratefulness from them. But apparently they are asking for the clash of civilizations they think they can avoid by talking nicely and pushing papers across desks at the United Nations and in Geneva.
To Jeff and Haystack -- I too was disgusted by the President's tone and style during that address. Nothing could be more important and yet he just didn't rise to the occasion. This is when, as the President, you reach down deep inside and come up with something great, and instead he gave us a whiny, dissembling little piffle of a speech.
"That if we're still in Iraq fighting a low-intensity war in 2017 it will have been worth it if by that time there is a quasi-functional state operating in parallel there." (emphasis added)
I think if the American people were optimistic that Iraq could have a quasi-functional state as a consequence of our involvement, the November elections would have turned out quite differently. Poorly defined as the goal is in Iraq, it would at least help if it were apparent that we were getting closer to that goal instead of farther away. With ever increasing sectarian violence, carried out in part by a faction of the governing coalition, it is hard to see how our military involvement will get Iraq to where we would like it to be. Achieving a quasi-functional state over 10 years also depends on the cooperation of Iraqis - I personally expect the government to be overthrown long before then whether we are still in the country or not.
If the options are A. fail to achieve our goals and leave now or B. sacrifice 10 years, 8,000 soldiers, $1 trillion, then fail to achieve our goals and leave, the choice is clear. Bush does not have the credibility nor a track record of success to effectively advocate for (or succeed at) plan B.
overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people and a majority of Americans do, and I think that eventually their will, will be exerted by their leaders.
Bush apparently had a good come to Jesus moment, concentrate the mind conversation with Malicki, who also is hearing from Iraqi voters that they want Baghdad secured so they can live lives.
I am ambivalent about the extent to which we should take off the gloves, but am positive we haven't taken them off enough, esp given the msm and their political influence, plus the political weakness inherent in democracies for long struggles, and most esp because of all the libs in this country.
From a historical standpoint, the Iraq war is miracle of success so far.
Jeff, I think this plan can work. I pray that the rhetoric playing down taking the fight to Iran is deflection, because, if Bush doesn't follow thru on the Axis of Evil speech which made Iran the enemy before Iraq was invaded, and if he pulls an LBJ letting the enemy have safe haven, he will probably have failed.
But Bush means what he says and gets the seriousness of the war to prevent a new dark ages in 20 years. Until he leaves office, he can win the war and should be backed by us. Talk in DC can't stop Bush from winning a war against Iran in short order without an extensive invasion and occupation. So until Bush is out of office, given the keeping of his word in so many historic ways, given his never wavering rhetorically, given his defying the 2006 election spin and Baker group, and given that he is the only CINC we have and that if his plan doesn't work we can't win, and given that to give his plan, America's plan, the best chance to work is to unite behind it,
we shouldn't engage in defeatism.
love ya guy
Bears-Saints?
Colts-Pats?
catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer.
"From a historical standpoint, the Iraq war is miracle of success so far."
You mean, aside from the rise in Iranian power? I agree with most of what you say, and IMO, we should have been talking about a military increase a year ago (and in much larger numbers).
But a miracle of success is just a bit too silly for me.I would say instead that considering the fact we are a gigantic democracy saddled with over a million war protesters before the war began, I'd say the war was fought admirably.
and in having their Persian Gulf made an American Lake. Big talk and UN admiration does not increase one's power against us. Saddam talked big and won a UN vote just before he moved from a palace to a spider hole.
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer.
but to confound the enemy (and by enemy I mean the left Democrats).
The reason for the anger of the Democrats (different from their opposition, to be expected) is because the President deprived them of their original plan, which was to say that the President was to blame because he didn't send in enough troops, didn't or did listen to his generals, and thereby lost iraq. That was the storyline, and that is why they kept pounding the not-enough-troops line right up until Bush called their bluff.
You want more troops? You want a new SecDef? Heck, you want a whole new team, including a group of officials (Carney, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, Gen Petraeus) who were in Iraq early on in 2003 and 2004 and opposed the policies of Bremer and CPA which reversed all the gains we made in the original attack?
Well, no. Actually they didn't. Because if they had really wanted more troops, or a different policy regarding the economic reconstruction, or many other complaints made endlessly over the past three years, they would be applauding the President now, instead of hauling out lame Vietnam comparisons and Star Trek references and attacking people in the Administration for being barren and so on.....
Because they got nothing! Nothing! The President took all their arguments and folded them into his speech and gave it back to them politely. Brilliant! Oh yes, it's the kind of thing you do when you're in a deep deep hole of your own digging...you turn the enemy's greatest strength against him (and by "enemy" I mean the left Democrats).
Previously the Dems were arguing on the grounds of competence and so forth, Bush didn't know what he was doing, and President Biden and President Hillary and so on were giving speeches about hosw they would win the war. Which turns out to be much what the President is doing now.
Meanwhile, the President simply gets out there and says, yep, I made some mistakes and I understand why folks are mad at me....of course his numbers go down even more...for a while.
The President is deflecting the anger and hostility of the American people onto himself and away from the plan. Taking a bullet for the war, as it were. Meanwhile, we are starting to implement the plan and we will see results this year in the form of increased security in Baghdad and yes, our troops being able to draw down.
Or not.
I would just say, don't ever count this President out. Get back to me in a month or so.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Meanwhile, the President simply gets out there and says, yep, I made some mistakes and I understand why folks are mad at me
Not exactly. What the President said was that mistakes had been made and that he took responsibility for them, which is a perfectly adequate observation of his position in the chain of command, but is NOT an acknowledgement that HE made any mistakes.
Of course, neither did he say what he thought the mistakes had been, which gives us no basis for evaluating whether he has come to the same realization as the rest of us, or whether he continues under his previous delusions. For all we know, he thinks that the biggest mistake was not wearing his lucky underwear on D-Day.
win a war, and apologies on TV for mistakes don't win wars. Killing the enemy via trial and error will.
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After martin Luther King, Jr. Day in Reply To This — User Info — #23
... but the difference here is that the Administration is currently hamstrung because it lacks credibility in the eyes of the majority of the American people.
The Administration could come up with the perfect plan for what to do next, but it would not receive a rational hearing because people are now inclined to assume that anything the President says is delusional.
I don't think the President will regain any credibility with the American people until he has given us an assessment of what has gone wrong and how to fix it that is both detailed and accords with what we all know to be the case.
Until he has some domestic credibility, it doesn't really matter what he does.
hamstrung in waging war under Art II than Clinton was in waging perjury under his desk. The dems had not the character to remove BC from office and they have the courage of their convictions to de-fund the war. So the man the American people chose in 2004 to wage war is not only not hamstrung, but rather is empowered.
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer.
... which is why both of you will continue to be confounded by developments that are easily predicatble to anyone who can read a poll (or assimilate the results of the mid-terms).
The next step will be Republicans who are up for election in 08, who will run as far and as fast from the President as they possibly can, thereby compounding his credibility problem.
I know you want to be a good soldier and all, but refusing to face facts doesn't in the end help anyone.
Now Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report and aware that “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, GC also blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.
The Whitehouse and DOD anticipated a quick campaign to topple the regime that would result in a clean decapitation leaving the Ministry bureaucracies in place for a smooth transition to a democratic Iraqi government capable of pumping oil, providing basic services to its citizens and quickly getting on its feet.
In fact, following the achievement of the military objective, everything has gone quite poorly. The ministries were looted in the May of 2003 while American troops looked on, Tommy Franks was operating with the objective to have the troops out of Iraq by September 2003 save 30,000 or so for security. In the meantime, the CPA was in disarray and soon Jerry Bremer arrived and disbanded the Iraqi army and began a deep de-Baathification process which deprived the nascent Iraqi government of its skilled and experienced administrators.
The over-arching objective continued to be to put in place a "legitimate" Iraqi government as quickly as possible. Remember the rush to hand over sovreignty in early summer of 2004? A constitution was to be quickly written, ratified and then elections would be conducted as soon as feasible. This head-long push to "make it quick" inspite of all the complications that came to fore as the invasions slowing morphed into the occupation/CPA interregnum was in my view misguided.
We are now at a place where it is devoutly to be wished we could turn back the clock to a time when U.S. officials directly administrated Iraq in such a way that services were delivered, security provided and a slow evolution toward stable democratic could be coordinated with a broad spectrum of Iraqis. Unfortunately, the current Iraqi government, mandated by a duly enacted constitution and legitimate elections remains riven with the very divisions that were only kept in check by Saddam's vicious repression.
I am afraid that trying to work with, coordinate with and sustain this very flawed Iraqi government will continue to frustrate every effort to provide a genuinely secure environment in which ordinary Iraqis can go about building their economy and rebuilding their lives. Over the next several weeks, it will be very telling just how the Iraqi government responds to and implements plans to disarm the shi'a militias. I do not expect that will make more than a token gesture.
I regret to say that I am quite pessimistic today that the present path offers any liklihood of a positive outcome.
constitution, election of a government, peace in 75% of the country, huge GDP increase, Iran surrounded, thousands of trained in afghanistan al qaida killed, sponsor of terror incl suicide bombers removed, terror state removed, terror state SAFE haven replaced by state where terrorists that raise their head against the US are killed, and no attacks on US soil.
Other than all that, yes, everything has been a disaster.
What was a disaster was the ongoing Saddam terror state. See mass graves, innocent Israeli dead from suicide bombers, etc
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer. Now also Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report and aware that “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, GC also blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.
first paragraph? just wondering...cause, I do not recall anyone ever saying this would be a quick campaign
To me, it seems like we're simply replicating the Wehrmacht in WWII. Tactically and operationally the best force in the conflict, but strategically inept because of a lack of clear direction from on high.
There are additional troops in Europe and Korea if we really had the will to use them. Yes, their use would come with costs, but if the costs of defeat are as high as many believe they will be, it's borderline criminal NOT to use them regardless of cost.
As far as the protestors go, give 'em a whiff of grapeshot and Kent State the lot of them. Not the most palatable of options, but again, if the stakes really are that high, treason must have a cost.
We're sick and tired of your liberal views, what's politically correct. Come Judgment Day, I'll be tying the noose and slipping it 'round your neck.
- Cock Sparrer
Has anyone asked the Administration why they didn't start planning for a larger Army three years ago? Had that begun then, we'd have the troops now to send in 100k, not just 20k.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism