This Was an Iraq Speech
When We Least Expected It, The President Sold The War
By Mark I Posted in Featured Stories | The White House — Comments (56) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The State of the Union is my favorite night of the political year. For as long as I can remember, I have sat attentively in front of my television and watched this annual American political tradition unfold. I love the pageantry of the speech: the way the president is announced into the chamber to thunderous applause, and then re-introduced by the Speaker of the House with that peculiar formulation, “the high privilege and the distinct honor;” the rise and fall of the legislators outdoing themselves to show their support for the favorite lines in the speech; the guests in the balcony, what a thrill it must be for them to be mentioned in the president’s message to Congress; and the way in which campaign seasoned legislators morph into groupies, fighting and jockeying for a chance to shake the president’s hand as he enters and leaves the chamber. There is very little in the world for which I would miss a State of the Union Speech.
Nevertheless, I found myself less than enthusiastic for this year’s version. I couldn’t bring myself to write a preview because I didn’t think that there was any chance I could be right. Early leaks of the speech weren’t promising. It was said the speech was going to focus on domestic initiatives and not foreign policy. Those domestic initiatives to be discussed included suspect paeans to alternative fuels, healthcare tax incentives, and No Child Left Behind. Despite all that, I watched. And I have to say, overall, I was pleasantly surprised.
Read on...
First, a note on the president’s demeanor. This is one of those things that frustrate me but for which I have to give the president credit. Right off the bat, he goes out of his way to flatter America's Mother-in-Law™, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with a really warm and sincere nod to her ascending to the Speaker’s chair. This is a woman who just this week, accused him of risking troops’ lives to prevent her from implementing the Democrats Iraq strategy. The takeover of Congress by the Democrats deserved a mention by the president, but she did not deserve the graciousness and the spotlight the president shared with her tonight. This is President Bush’s fundamental decency trumping his ego. A less decent man would have called Nancy Pelosi on her comments tonight, not held her up for applause.
As I stated earlier, the domestic initiatives are suspect to me. Some sound good, like the healthcare proposal, although the president really didn’t go out of his way to explain it or sell it. Some sound bad, like the immigration plan. Saving gasoline? Don’t much care. No Child Left Behind? No strong feelings one-way or the other. The domestic initiatives were a mixed bag generally. Foreign policy was where I most wanted to hear the president deliver a strong defense of his policies. I think he came through.
My immediate reaction after the speech was that the section on Iraq and the war on terror was the clearest and most compelling case the president has yet made. Here is the relevant portion:
In the last two years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East – and we have been sobered by the enemy’s fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections – choosing a transitional government ... adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world … and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.
A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia – and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in. Every one of us wishes that this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. So let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory.
We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq – a plan that demands more from Iraq’s elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down terrorists, insurgents, and roaming death squads. And in Anbar province – where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them – we are sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.
The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now is the time for their government to act. Iraq’s leaders know that our commitment is not open ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad – and they must do so. They have pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party. They need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and Coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq’s leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks to achieve reconciliation – to share oil revenues among all of Iraq’s citizens ... to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq ... to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life ... to hold local elections ... and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secured. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.
My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq – because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.
If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country – and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq, would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens... new recruits ... new resources ... and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September 11th and invite tragedy. And ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East ... to succeed in Iraq ... and to spare the American people from this danger.
This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united – in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq – and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field – and those on their way.
The contrast of 2005 and 2006 is clear and understandable, the portrayal of the enemy as “the enemy” is long overdue, the admission that the enemy’s strategy worked and the determination to adapt to it is heartening, the description of the nightmare scenario for the United States as the objective for the enemy is effective, and lines like, “we are deploying reinforcements,” “I ask you to give it a chance,” “not the fight we entered but it is the fight we are in,” and “whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure,” position the president as reasonable. The tone has changed from “Victory is the only option,” to “We must not fail in Iraq.” But if tone is the only thing sacrificed to the new political reality in Washington, then the president will have done well. As a result of this speech, Democrats will be forced to make their position on Iraq and the war on terror seem reasonable, too. They will have to explain that they want success in Iraq as much as the president, but they will also have to explain how withdrawing troops, or cutting off funds, or voting their lack of support for the president’s plan will bring that success.
I suspect that the White House played coy with the pre-speech excerpts today. All of the leaks were geared toward the domestic initiatives. In the body of the speech, though, there really wasn’t much to them. There was a list of factors that contribute to a hope and opportunity society, but none of them was the focus of any real effort at explanation. And they were placed first, which I believe was done so that they would not be the focus of post-speech analysis. Rather, I think the White House wanted to catch everyone unaware and get viewers to sit up and take notice of a truly well written and important Iraq speech. It worked on me.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Success in Iraq IS vital to America's security — Comments (3) »
This Was an Iraq Speech 56 Comments (0 topical, 56 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
And the democrats really showed America that they do not want victory in Iraq -- that is sad.
We Democrats want the same thing sane Republicans want. We want an America that is respected in the world and does not have troops being picked off by both sides in somebody else's religious civil war. It is disgraceful to suggest that Democrats want America to fail at anything, especially an armed conflict in which failure means the death of our brave men and women in uniform. It is Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war that created the situation in Iraq. Insults to the patriotism of good Americans who disagree with him on a matter of grave national and world importance are the last refuge of those who have time and again failed to advance well-reasoned supporting arguments that do what good arguments always do: they carry the day. The argument that Mr. Bush is correct is not such an argument and so far has been proven wrong at every turn. His plan for additional troops has failed to convince even his own military commanders (those not yet fired), his own intelligence heads, or the American people. Saying that Democrats do not want "victory" in Iraq is nothing more than hiding behind a false, fear-based view of what it means to be a patriot.
If you think "victory" in Iraq is a military task, were you screaming for Mr. Bush's resignation when he sent in fewer than half the troops his best and brightest military commanders told him would be needed? If they weren't his best and brightest, why were they still in the top positions after Mr. Bush had been if office for more than two full years?
And if you do think "victory" is a military proposition, please tell us all what it will look like. Tell us precisely how the use of highly trained, highly specialized and dedicated killing machines as little more than policemen will produce settlement of a religious conflict that has raged between Muslim factions for more than 1,400 years. Are we simply to kill all the combatants or presumed combatants? I do not want that kind of victory and I don't think you do either. Besides that, we haven't the military strength to do it unless we start lining people up and shooting them. So, what do you think "victory" is?
Please. Take it line by line and point by point and just shred the bejeebers out of it. Show me where I am wrong. If you can. Or, you can just resort to good old tried and true name calling.
What I have learned in my experience is that people who have anything of substance to say usually say it, especially when asked.
So I am asking. Show me the substance.
"It is Mr. Bush's ill-conceived war that created the situation in Iraq."
You say that as if our invasion was a bad thing. You prefer Hussein to still be in power, seeking nuclear weapons and considering aiding Al-Queda?
"Are we simply to kill all the combatants or presumed combatants? I do not want that kind of victory and I don't think you do either."
War means killing people. You'll find most objection to the occupation here based on our not killing enough of them. Terrorism flourishes where governments don't make appropriate reprisals. That's a large part of why we came to Iraq in the first place.
"Tell us precisely how the use of highly trained, highly specialized and dedicated killing machines as little more than policemen will produce settlement of a religious conflict that has raged between Muslim factions for more than 1,400 years."
Even the most ridiculous plans for Iraq have not included this. A stable and free government was, IMO, more of a wish than a reasonable goal. I'm pleased to see we're turning toward a more pragmatic policy, especially since it implies killing lots more militants. Why aren't you?
"Saying that Democrats do not want "victory" in Iraq is nothing more than hiding behind a false, fear-based view of what it means to be a patriot."
Let me turn the question around. What is the victory Democrats seek in Iraq? If you're referring to diplomacy, please explain why Iran, Syria, and other nations would want to help us out. Pipe dreams don't qualify as solutions.
and I shall try to navigate back here tomorrow to consider it more fully and attempt to meet it squarely. For now I am exhuasted and going to bed. It's 1:40AM on the west coast and I need to be sharp at 9:00.
Great question.
The democrats seem to think that "there are no military solutions to Iraq, only diplomatic ones" or something along those lines.
What does the diplomatic solution look like here? Who are we meeting with, what are they expected to do, and what are the teeth when the opt to not follow through?
And while we are at it I love the way democrats have retermed a withdrawal as "redeployment"
many on RedState blast liberals out of the water just for setting foot here. Not because of any particular arguement style or intelligence level, but more specifically because they come in here and DEMAND we answer to their statements, when we have gone over the same ground, over and over and over and over, with every anti-war liberal.
It's not that we have a problem defending the war, but we're offered nothing new to defend. NewLiberal17256 shows up, drops the same points NewLiberal17255 did, then demands we answer them as if we've never been quite so challenged before. It's insulting, and no wonder that we tend to respond with insult rather than debate.
New arguements please...or go find out what the pro-war position is and argue against those points rather than dropping your position points like bread crumbs and expecting us to swarm.
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
Military victory is killing enough of the Iraqi Government's enemies so that the Iraqi Government is able to sustain itself and not be overthrown. Is that not completely OBVIOUS?!? The troop surge, amoung other policy changes, will help insure that to happen. If the Iraqi Government fails the consequences will be felt in the Middle East & in the United States. Don't you see that Al Quaeda is using men & resourses to topple the Iraqi Government? Don't you know that these resourses will be diverted to attacks on the USA if we fail to protect that government & defeat Al Quaeda in Iraq? I'm not saying that all Democrats are unpatriotic (although many are)...most are just uninformed...
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
if not the Iraqi people themselves? Certainly AQ is now present in Iraq, taking full advantage of the situation that we created, and using willing Iraqis to do it. Can anyone honestly say that this would be happening if we had not invaded? In hindsight, you could almost say that in terms of AQ in Iraq, we'd be better off if Saddam were still there with the entire population too scared to come out of their houses except to worhsip him. My understanding is that Saddam hated AQ for cutting into his action and they could never get a toehold in Iraq until he was out of the picture. Correct me if I'm wrong.
But that's in the past. We got in there thinking it would be pretty uncomplicated and it literally blew up in our faces. I really want to know what we do now. I am not unpatriotic just because I don't want my country to invest more lives and money in an approach that has been a dismal failure and shows no real signs of being anything but that in the future. Calling me unpatriotic for opposing a troop increase is no better than if I were to call you a warmonger for thinking it deserves a chance as a national strategy for victory.
This extremism and harsh judgment of those with opposing political views is destructive, and both sides should knock it off.
Our first strategic goal was to topple Saddam, who was obviously a threat to our country. Do you not remember that he tried to assassinate an American President? Now our country faces another dangerous (albeit not as dangerous as Saddam) threat: Iraq becoming a failed state. We need to adjust strategies to stop this from happening, and I believe the Presidents prescription is much better than the "talking to Iran" prescription. How the heck is talking to Iran going to help us win more than sending more troops?
Vacuum Cleaners Don't Kill People; Abortionists with Vacuum Cleaners Kill People
is that AQ is the threat and according to everything I hear, AQ is the penultimate threat, far more dangerous than Saddam ever was. I don't beleive that Saddam was all that much of a threat. I think he got off the reservation pretty far and that he would have liked to have been a very serious threat, but that after the Gulf War he pretty much petered out on that score...
In any event, turning the place into chaos-land is what let AQ in the door in the first place and let people think they could take up arms against their neighbors, which they have done with considerable enthusiasm. That's what I believe. Now AQ is in there and recruiting away like mad, and they have a whole generation of PO'd young men who are more than willing to do anything to get back at the US because they believe the US is ultimately responsible for their neighborhood being rubble and their father or brother or friend being detained somewhere or killed by a rival sectarian death squad. Who, after all, brought them chaos in place of a dictator who kept them under control? Angry and repressed, yes, but nevertheless under control.
The answer to this mess, if one believes that military force is the answer, is not a paltry (in this context) 20,000 troops. It is 200,000 troops. Or 400,000 troops. It is a checkpoint every few hundred yards in every direction and it is lots of people demanding, "Your papers please." Is that what you want America to represent? If you do, then I am against you. But the point is that 20,000 troops will only prove what our enemies are saying in those recruiting visits, and it will prove it without getting the job anywhere near done. We're either at war or we're wasting our time and our money and our kids' lives.
I sincerely believe that we're going to see a lot more of our troops getting killed without getting anyhing positive out of it in terms of stabilizing the Iraqi government. If the Iraqis wanted a stable government, they'd have one. If the Iraqis were ready for a stable government, they'd have one. If the Iraqis get a stable government, I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that it will be a government the US doesn't like. Not one bit. Because the same folks that can't wait to kill us and kill each other will be happy with.
You make me want to cry.
Cry for America, that WE are the source of all evil in Iraq.
Cry for Saddam, whose only crime was not being a good enough despot.
Cry for our troops, that they will be unable to win.
Cry for the manipulated sectarian militiamen, the robots of Allah, who but for their role as freedom fighters would have no hope at all.
Cry for Al Qaeda, who are merely the providers of vision and honor for those young freedom fighters.
Cry for people who don't know what "penultimate" means.
*Sniff*. Got Kleenex?
OK, I feel better. I recognize that the foregoing as much lampoons your position as not. So now for the reasoned argument part:
- It's all our fault
- Saddam was a bad guy, but didn't need removed
- We rashly removed him
- AQ moved in
- We can't win with 20,000 troops
- Therefore, we should quit
First, your facts are skewed toward defeatism, and it colors all of your discussion.
It looks like you're saying that AQ benefits more from Iraq now than it did from Saddam, presumably because Joe Wilson didn't think Iraq wanted yellowcake. Pardon me if that's not your position, but it's not accurate in any sense.
You presume that you, having read the news reports, have a better handle on the situation than thousands of military men who have spent their entire careers studying these matters, and not incidentally, whose careers and very lives depend on having a clue. You can afford to be wrong. They cannot. Underlying your post is an argument from false authority, that of yourself.
But you follow all of that up with:
If the Iraqis wanted a stable government, they'd have one.
Either you don't mean by "stable" what the rest of us mean, or you are saying that while it's all our fault that Iraq is such a mess, it's all the Iraqis fault that Iraq is such a mess.
*Sniff*.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
the argument that the lefties have is:
All we are saying is give dhimmi a chance.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
of the war on terror. Draw out your enemy to a common front. That front is Iraq. Where is AQ today? In the Anbar province. I like having them there than any Main Street, USA. This has been a success.
The failure of the Bush administration in the war on Iraq is twofold. First, underestimating our enemy's resolve. Islamic fascists fight patiently. They are content with miltary gains that take generations to accomplish. The American people with their weak stomachs can only handle conflict for a year or two, tops. We are impatient. Our enemy has been fighting this war for centuries, we just fail to realize it.
Secondly, the administration is slow to change tactics. How many generals did Lincoln fire before he got it right? How many policies did he enact? How many rights did he violate by suspending Habeas Corpus. I for one want this new strategy to work. It is the last chance we have before the public will force politicians to bring home our troops with their tails between their legs.
The world knows that the way to beat us is not through military means but through the weak stomachs of the American people. If our enemies can simply survive long enough Americans will force defeat because of our impatience. We no longer have the ability to fight a war on the scale of WWII.
I hope and pray I am wrong. Our country depends on it.
we'd have been in the same place in the Fall of 1944 and would never have been able to prosecute the Pacific War to conclusion. America was already a very war weary nation, and with far better reasons than we have today; troop morale was depleted by a seemingly endless grind in which nobody wanted to be the last to die; civilian morale was depleted by societal dislocation, rationing, and the fact that no Amerian mother wanted to be the last to get a Gold Star. Had there been an endless drumbeat from the Left that the ultimate outcome didn't effect America's interests, the World would be a very different place today.
By the Fall of '44, it was evident that both Germany and Japan were defeated, it was just a matter of putting paid to it. To play a little Harry Turtledove, it is here that Stalin made the mistake that might well have cost the Soviet Union the World. Had he turned the Comintern's propaganda spigots back on, he might well have forced the British and Americans to take their football and go home. By this time, neither Germany nor Japan were any longer able to project power against either British or American interests. To use a current phrase, there was no imminent threat to the vital interests of either the US or GB; why shed anymore blood?
After all, the Europeans had been fighting each other for thousands of years, what part does America have to play in that? Why not say "a pox on all their houses" and retreat behind our oceans. Likewise, the Japanese had been forced back to their home islands, saving only China, and the Japanese and the Chinese had been fighting for thousands of years. Qui bono?
Had the American Left turned on this siren song, the Soviet Union might very well have established hegemony over continental Europe and all of Asia. How long do you think it would have been before they turned on the last two men standing? The choices look to me to be about the same today; just a different enemy.
In Vino Veritas
I think that your scenario was highly unlikely. First off it wasn't the "American Left" that was against the war in World War II.
Regardless the entire nation was completely mobilized for war. Certainly Americans were war weary, as were the British as were the Russians. But there was no desire to sue for peace by any of the Allies.
And while the media would have changed the tone of the war for sure, I don't know if that would have been for the worse.
You are projecting modern sensibilities about a considerably different war onto events that transpired 60 years ago.
American soldiers are dying in Afghanistan as well. Why is there no hue and cry to get out of Afghanistan, save from the irrelevant Left?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
the European, British, and American Left were adamantly opposed to resisting Germany from the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop Pact right up to the moment Barbarossa began and Stalin started screaming "Second Front Now."
I actually have a great deal more respect for the Left of that time than that of today. They knew they were Communists, followed the Comintern line with extraordinary discipline, and were rational, methodical, and quite often very, very brave. Today they're mostly just useful idiots driven by childish emotions.
In Vino Veritas
So because one relatively extreme wing of the Left, the Soviet Communist supporters, were in lockstep with Stalin for 2 years that means that the American Left opposed intervention?
Shall we ignore the fact that the leader of the American Left at the time, FDR, did everything in his power to provoke both Germany and Japan into getting into a shooting match with them? Shall we ignore that it was the American Right that was militantly opposed to such actions? And I'm not talking some obscure wing of the right at the time. I'm talking about just about the ENTIRE right in America, from the Nazi supporters to the absolute isolationists.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
to get even a B List invitation to a Democrat cocktail party today, likewise JFK the First. Both were statists that believed in use of the power of the central government to pursue what was essentially a populist agenda. Neither was an ideological socialist as seems to be necessary for entre into the Party's inner sanctum today. On his public positions, JFK would have trouble getting the Republican nomination today and his policies would be anathema to the Democrat leadership. They love to quote his speachwriters' soaring words and evoke the Camelot image, but I ain't seen any Democrats pushing supply side tax cuts or military intervention lately.
Most of the American Right's opposition at the time was a combination of long-held isolationism and a populist/nativist thread that bought in, with some justification, to the notion that America's entry into the last war had as much to do with protecting loans to and investments in the Allies than in any overarching principles. You can get many of the same arguments in any working class bar or union hall in America today.
And it must be admitted that there was a wide, bipartisan acceptance of racist/anti-semitic beliefs, not at all defined by party, in America in those days, and many Americans could find some agreement with certain German policies.
The hard Left in those days WAS Communist and remained so, and fairly openly, until well into the Fifties, by the end of which most professing Communists had been purged from public life and the trade unions. Now they've moved to the universities and the networks, call themselves progressives, and don't have the Soviet Union to look to anymore.
In Vino Veritas
"First off it wasn't the "American Left" that was against the war in World War II."
Wrong. American Communists, fellow travelers, and their shills in the media (if that's what you mean by the American left) agitated for war until September 28, 1939. As a student of history I'm sure you recognize that date, on which Germany and the USSR signed a non-aggression pact and proceeded to attack and divvy up eastern europe.
At that point the "American Left" became pacifists, agitating against "war" and sabotaging efforts to re-arm and reinstitute the draft, holding strikes, etc. They opposed our entry in the war in every way. They were antiwar. They were isolationist. In reality, they did not want us to fight the USSR.
Until June 22, 1941, when Hitler invaded the USSR. The next day the American Left was all pro-war again! And they stayed as supporters of the war as long as we were fighting to defend their country, the USSR.
As to Afghanistan, if we were losing there, and we aren't, the Left would be all over it.
Thank you for making that clear.
Strangely, that religious war is what's threatening to blow up more of us in the US.
The Muslim civil war is our war. We can help eliminate the radicals and make peace among the less radical Muslims, or we can ignore it. Ignoring it got us 9/11. If we ignore it now, we will actually deserve the terrorist attacks the US will suffer in the future.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Mr. Bush's Iraq policy was, is and always will be a dismal, incredibly oversold failure. And tonight he merely beat the same old drum to the same old beat. 135,000 troops, 3,000+ dead and tens of thousands maimed and crippled (with a "just say No" support system to navigate on their return) and he thinks 20,000 more are going to change something. All it will change is the rate at which our soldiers die. No one with any training, experience or brains agrees with him, but he's going to do it anyway. It is in fact such a terribly bad idea that the best thing you can find to say about it is that you think he did a pretty good job of "selling" it. Good ideas do not need to be sold. Good ideas have lines forming around the block and people anxious to buy.
In his 2003 SOTU speech Mr. Bush promised us and the troops he would send into harms way that we would "fight with the full force and might of the United States military." Then sent in fewer that half the troops recommended by General Shinseki, then the Army's Chief of Staff, and promptly canned Shinseki. He sent those troops in inadequate strength and pathetically equipped for any more than a walk in a park.
In his 2006 SOTU message Mr. Bush said, "We should be able to further decrease our troop levels, but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C."
It seems that our military commanders are in fact making the troop level decisions, for the simple reason that every commander who has disagreed with the Chief Politician's plan to send in yet more sittting duck targets-in-uniform is no longer a commander. Mr. Bush has shamelessly gotten rid of every single commander who has disagreed with his plan for a deeper troop commitment. As for others who disagree with it, who happen to be 2/3 of the American people and most of the Congress including the saner members of his own party, he has simply ignored them or crassly questioned their patriotism. It is only matter of time until the current crop of commanders is also fired as Mr. Bush digs deeper and deeper into the ranks to find those who will support what he proposes. The best people were already at the top of the chain of command. If not, then why not? So what we're getting now is "second best," and the decision to put them at the top is not based on their military expertise but on their politics.
This will not be the last of this nonsense either. When 20,000 cannot accomplish the impossible task of bringing a military solution to a problem that cannot be solved by military means short of outright conquest, Mr. Bush will be back for more. He has married this war in a state that does not allow divorce. Mark my words. When he asks for another 20,000 there will be another shakeup at the top of the chain of command and the "third best" will be promoted while the "second best" are shown the door. I won't be surprised if by the time Mr. Bush's term in office ends we have a bunch of wide-eyed light colonels calling the shots and another 3,000 dead in Iraq!
And yet you applaud Mr. Bush for doing a good job of "selling the war?" Why in the world do you support a war plan that must be "sold" to overcome the objections of the military that Mr. Bush promised us would be trusted to make the military decisions?
I mean no disrepect, but I have news for you. Not only is a pat on the back for a mere worn out sales pitch unwarranted, no one was "sold." Not one person who was against Mr. Bush's plan before this speech will now be for it. Not one. The vast majority of the American people, the Congress and the military see quite clearly that the war was over in a matter of days, almost four years ago. We see that the meat grinder that is now quite predictably killing, emasculating and humiliating us one day at a time is an occupation in which our troops are surrounded on all sides at all times by armed zealots and fanatics who don't mind dying and want nothing more than to kill each other, unless it is perhaps to kill our troops. Most of us see that it is long past time for another approach. You, on the other hand, think it's time for a sales pitch.
He should have fired Shinseki (and the other Clinton generals) much sooner.
There's nothing quite so exhilerating as being shot at... and missed. Winston Churchill
but just one because I have to leave for work!
There IS NO MR BUSH!
He is PRESIDENT BUSH! I really don't give a da*n if you don't like the man but show him the respect the office deserves! You demean yourself when you demean the president. Just a it is former President Clinton and former President Carter it is PRESIDENT BUSH!
Or are you merely an talented amateur?
I'd originally drafted sort of a point by point rebuttal of the howlers you tossed in here as some kind of supposed factual underpinning to this screed, but as I was composing it it seemed as though that was showing you much more courtesy than you've shown to us in our own house.
The Cliff's notes:
1. Shinseki wasn't fired, he retired at the end of a 4-year tenure as Chief of Staff, Army. What caused him trouble was not his testimony on Iraq, but his pushing of the Crusader artillery system.
2. The Army Chief of Staff isn't in the business of recommending troop deployments to anyone. Really. That ended with the Goldwater-Nichols Act.
3. Total wounded in action in Iraq totals 22,000. Of those 6700 have not returned to duty within 72 hours. According to TIME magazine, 500 members of the armed forces have required amputations. Not to minimize anything, but there haven't been "tens of thousands maimed".
4. No one who was against the troops surge has been fired. Abizaid has been at CENTCOM for over four years and has about 35 years service. He retired. No surprises there. Of the two top US generals in Iraq he was the only one who didn't think more troops were needed. Casey was in favor of additional troops and is moving to replace Pete Schoomaker as Army Chief of Staff. So I don't know who "everyone" is and neither it seems do you.
5. The people going into Iraq and CENTCOM are not second best. How can you look at the records of Dave Petraeus and conclude that he's not a top shelf officer? You can't.
You've already, on this thread, demonstrated you are an egregious ass.
Moe was charitable enough to merely ask for an apology. I think it's your turn to become a contributor on this website.
Don't make streiff open this again.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
5 years after 9/11, Dems have no defense policy. I'll take someone who tries to lay out a serious policy, even if he follows it up with insufficient measures, than a bunch of cowardly fools who can't muster the will to decide how to defeat the Islamist threat.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan
who wasn't good for anything. Except keeping AQ out of his country.
Let me see. Was our mission there to eliminate WMD's? Oops. No WMD's.
Was our mission to remove Saddam? We did that. Tipped over his statue and everything. Things got worse instead of better, for the Iraqis as well as our guys. Oops.
Oh yeah, bring democracy to a people hungry for western style government? They don't know what to do with it or, even worse, don't much like it? It'd probably be nicer if they had electricity and running water more than a few hours a day. Oops.
Maybe our mission was to so upset things in Iraq that any semblance of order was lost, occupy the country and make everyone hate us while dismantling every facet of government capable of maintaining order so that a civil war would break out and AQ would find fertile hearts and minds to recruit and train in the art or terrorism. That way we could make it our highly legitimate mission to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. No "oops" on that one I'm afraid. Problem is, AQ is still everywhere it was before and now it's in Iraq too!
The problem with those who think President Bush is the fellow to be trusted to get us out of this mess is that they seem to overlook that he is the very same fellow who got us into it. He didn't listen to his military people then and he isn't listening now. At least he's steady and predictable though.
3,060 American DEAD in Iraq. Do you know where your child is?
Thats the yearly figure btw. If I believed that libs quoting the death tolls actually cared about anyone outside their own skins, i would lend more credence to your line off argumentation. Unfortunately all the evidence is to the contrary.
I particularly enjoy the soft racism in your argument. The iraqis just arent ready for democracy. Funny seeing as they seem to have mastered the concept quite wel in three elections.
Electricity production is 8500 mwh/month as opposed to 8900 mwh/month pre invasion. You have been down this road before but haven't bothered to assimilate that you are perpetrating a fallacy.Which pretty much sums up the lieral wing on these issues.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
And then you will apologize to the entire website for even looking like you were using the chickenhawk argument. And then you will never use it again here. Ever.
Take the hint.
Moe
PS: A subtle hint: your inability to refer to the President of the United States as anything except Mr. Bush is fatally flawing your attempts to come across as reasonable. Do try to remember that, as per Trelaina, we've seen all the obvious stuff by now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
having raised a bunch of kids and dealt with a lot of liberals, I've learned that both can make SAH - REEEE sound a lot like m**********er.
In Vino Veritas
You said
"Let me see. Was our mission there to eliminate WMD's? Oops. No WMD's."
No, the mission was to eliminate the THREAT of WMD in the hands of either Saddam or those who would use them against us or our allies or interests...
Does Saddam possess WMD (the W is already plural)? NO.
Do AQ, OBL, Zarqawi (oops) posses WMD? NO.
How is that a failure???? Regardless of the mistake in intel, better eliminate the threat you thought was there, then learn the hard way that you were right all along...
you would now be supporting the war?
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)
I thought he did well. Arguably his best speech to date.
But I don't think he said anything new here. It was the same appeals that the administration has made for the past 2 years.
His speech was good. But I think that he needed to hit it out of the park and he didn't do that.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The fallacy of "nothing new": he's said all of this before, so it must be wrong.
Just saying.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
I didn't say it was wrong. I said that it was too late.
Had he said this speech 2 years ago or even last year perhaps it would have had an impact. But at this point the American people are not in favor of his plan and the arguments in favor of carrying for with his plan have no convinced the American people.
I think he needed to talk more about how the war and its outcome directly affects the average American. Talking about freedom in the Middle East is all well and good but most Americans will not have a visceral response from that.
This is just my opinion but I think that the President needed to hit a home run but instead he stretched a single into a double.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
This morning on GMA Obama was giving his SOTU reaction. Under him the entire time was a graphic that said, "Will he give the president a chance?"
Don't you think that when he says essentially "no", his arguments, whatever they are, lose something? Doesn't he appear to be unreasonable? Aren't all the Democrats in the same box now? Doesn't the bloom come off the rose just a little when Obama, or Hillary!™, or another Democrat appear so unforgiving and (shudder) mean?
That's the point of my piece. A double prolongs the inning. That's what the president is doing here, buying time for the strategy to work and for us to achieve a victory in Iraq. Democrats are now forced to explain that they want that too. It changes the debate. Just like a double changes the defense.
Will it work? I don't know. But all reasonable people hope so. Don't they?
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
But I think that would require that people have a different view of Iraq now than they had before the speech and I'm not really sure that this speech achieved that.
I'll guess we'll find out soon enough.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
on foreign policy?...comical...he thinks he is more than qualified because he has LIVED overseas, and STUDIED overseas...
like I said...comical.
As compared to what?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
answering q's about the current policies, as well as those qualifications of the other contenders in the race for the D nod..
don't you think that saying you lived overseas, and went to school overseas....means squat to your ability to construct, formulate, and execute a sound foreign policy ??
I think that living overseas can give you a perspective of how the rest of the world may see things that many American don't realize. I've lived overseas twice and I think it has helped me to get a better worldview.
Does that, in itself, make someone qualified? No but it certainly helps, IMO.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
however...for a serious canidate for Pres....it really shows lack of substance at this point in the game...I agree with you as it would pertain to the average Joe....it does help with perspective and understanding of other nations, cultures.
But used in the context as a Pres. hopeful...he didn't really do well on the spot...IMO
That's what I meant by "Just saying", though I recognize that it looked like I was sniping at you, and not the general use of "nothing new".
It's a common tactic that you'll hear in the media: no "new" proposals from this or that candidate. The implication is that only new proposals can be effective. It's a way to make perfect the enemy of good, as someone smarter than me said.
Anyway, sorry to accuse.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
I understand your point. The "Nothing New" argument is often used to disparage someone's comments.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
especially since the leaks of the objectionable domestic agenda made it look like the president would ignore the GWOT. I also agree this was the first time the president has effectively explained his policy on Iraq and his greater overall GWOT strategy. I liked that he pointed out recent global successes as this is something the Administration should have done and failed to do over the last few years.
It probably is too little, too late to counter years of MSM propaganda and even truths that should have been explained, but it is an attempt. And that is something to applaud.
Let us hope the Big Government agenda remains something to gain cheap Democratic applause and the president remains focused on the only issue that really matters.
I think your analysis is right on the money.
FH echoes the "same thing for the last 2 years"line and then gives us "if he had said this 2 years ago or even last year." Which is it? I don't remember anyone saying 2 years ago that the Islamist (not just AQ) strategy of killing Iraqis (and other innocents throughout the world) at random was such a failure that they needed to change to a policy of inciting and reinforcing internal sectarian violence.
BTW can we agree that most Civil Wars (not that Iraq yet rises to that level) in history have had outside support on at least one and often both sides? To identify Iraq as a "Civil War" does not of itself imply that we should not be interested and involved in the outcome. GOF simply assumes that we cannot influence a favorable outcome, with no historical basis for his assumption.
Can we also agree that another couple centuries of relative Middle East stability, as we had under Franco-Brit (and Turkish) hegemony, would be acceptable?
I got busy and forgot until he was almost to the Iraq part and hadn't seen any pre-notes. Therefore, I just got the biggest thrill I've had for some time to see such a marvelous synopsis of our current situation in Iraq and the stakes of the fight.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
And I have now no need of visitng the oft-frequent blogs I once enjoyed. Namely, HotAir and Ace. I'm sorry for their cynicism, and further regret they are so weak as to sit idly by to wait for someone else to pull them up by the bootstraps.
The President's intent is both inspiring and worthy of our support.
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism...Theodore Roosevelt, October 12, 1915