Sending a Message in Anbar
When the Ground is as Important as the Facts on it
By Mark I Posted in War — Comments (34) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Looking tired after a long flight and a long day of meetings, President Bush made a statement to the nation from Anbar Province in Iraq. The president and a conspicuously high level delegation made a surprise stop in Iraq today on their way to Australia. Defense Secretary Gates, Secretary of State Rice, National Security Advisor Hadley, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Pace joined the president on the ground today.
The delegation met with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and General David Petraeus, in Anbar, to discuss ongoing military and political progress in the country.
Read on...
The president's statement on the visit was notable for the fact that it occurred outdoors at night. If there was a desire for insurgents to take a shot at the leader of the free world, their job was made much easier by the cover provided by the darkness and the handy targeting assistance provided by the bright lighting for the president's speech. It was a riskier-than necessary setting for a presidential address.
Indeed the entire visit was marked with over-the-line symbolism by the president. First, there was the landing, in Anbar Province, once a vast no go zone for the US Military. Then there was the high powered delegation. Three cabinet level officials and the top military advisor to the president. Top that off with the outdoor nighttime speech and it is clear that the images designed to emerge from this surprise visit are designed to stress the improvement in security.
Recall that Sen. McCain made headlines in April with a well publicized trip to a market in Baghdad. The senator's stroll was intended to demonstrate to the American public that Baghdad was becoming more secure. Predictably, the left and the media rushed in to point out the size of the senator's security detail and to generally throw cold water on the outing. It's just too important to the left that the public continue to view Iraq as a failed venture for there to be any hint of improvement there.
Now that that surge has been nearly universally acknowledged as a success, President Bush made sure to drive home the point by flying into the former heartland of the Sunni insurgency, and speaking out in the open with a cadre of his top advisors by his side. Make no mistake, nothing happened in Anbar today that could not have happened in the Green Zone of Baghdad. The fact that it was in Anbar is as much news, if not more, than the fact of the meeting itself.
So now the naysayers have moved the goalposts to the impossible to achieve point of political reconciliation in order for Iraq to be a success. Recent indications along these lines are good. The left and the media are quickly running out of places to put that goalpost. If the recent trend continues, look forward to another Bush speech from Iraq. Only this one may be in front of a unified Iraqi Parliament.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Presidential Visit To Iraq — Comments (2) »
Sending a Message in Anbar 34 Comments (0 topical, 34 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
If things are so gosh darned good, why does Bush have to sneak in under the cover of darkness, surround himself with an entire army then leave a short time later? Like he has done every time he visited Iraq.
If things are so great, why doesn't he tour Iraq for a couple of days?
As to flying into Baghdad, just a few days ago, three brave Capitol Commandos flew out of Baghdad under insurgent fire. Doesn't sound like much military control is in place, at least outside the green zone.
Oh, and those "pacified" Sunnis? Well, we just bought them off with guns and money. Which, incidentally is pissing of Al Maliki, who happens to be a Shiite.
Yes, all is well in the land of Messopotamia! Tomorrow's edition: War is peace, freedom is slavery, the Sunnis are our friends and the Shiites are our enemies. And the Saudis are our best friends ever.
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
Agreed. We made such a mess. If only it could be the way it was and Saddam could finish his ethnic cleansing and extinguish the Kurds like the Marsh Arabs. Torturing and killing Shias or even athletes because they underperformed in the World Cup, imprisoning children and raping women with broken bottles, invading neighboring countries. But now, it's just such a mess over there. Who is Bush fooing? Silly neocons.
in all the other major wars we've fought - revolutionary, civil, ww1, ww2, korea, vietnam - as soon as we hit any big difficulties.
you are a shame to the nation.
when President Kucinich declares peace.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I wonder what Harry Reid thinks about that?
President Bush may not be the most conservative republican in Washington, and he sure as hell isn't the greatest speaker, but wow, how the troops light up when he visits. If only the American people and congress would support the troops as much as the troops support Bush and vice-versa. Victory is the only choice.
I do believe that he is very much appreciated by the military and rightly so. It really is too bad that the media tears down both the presidency and the military. To me, it seems like a repeat of Vietnam...(traitors all).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
While I agree that the left as well as the media will do whatever it can to discredit anything positive about the status of this war, I've never put much stock into Bush's traveling road shows either. It will be many years before an American leader can safely make an appearance in Iraq without vast security. I don't understand why the Bush Admin allowed September to be a magic date for success in Iraq. The left will only look at the negative of the GOA report and the Bush Admin is still trying to perfect its "mission accomplished" and "last throes" statements. Now, it has to put on a dog and pony show to help convince people that leaving Iraq would be a disaster. Honesty doesn't seem to be the long suit of either side.
And do you think calling us liars is really an appropriate thing to do in our home?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
I think the Bush Admin should be straight forward with the people. The war is going to take a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of patience. I don't think he should sidestep the truth. I'm not calling anyone here a liar.
You just weren't paying attention, but then again, you're probably so afflicted with BDS that you never did...
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
"It will be many years before an American leader can safely make an appearance in Iraq without vast security."
It will be many years before an American leader can safely make an appearance in Kansas without vast security.
What's your point -- that the yardstick for success in Iraq is a level of security we can't offer our President in our own country?
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
In any given town in Kansas, there's law and order as well as an established and functioning police department for the Secrete Service to work with. We are nowhere near that in Iraq. We're still working on that.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
I haven't been there recently, but even in a relatively placid state like Kansas I expect there are a couple of enclaves that would give Fallujah a run for its money in the "law and order as well as an established and functioning police department" department.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
American Presidents have security plans drawn up for them wherever they go. I understand that Iraq is a dangerous place, and his security detail of course, had to account for that danger however that is the job of the Secret Service on a daily basis no matter where the President travels. This is an inane attack on the President, his security detail, and what is happening in Iraq.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
The question isn't whether the troops like Mr. Bush or if we should even leave or stay. The question is whether or not the military can support whatever operations are necessary in order to achieve victory.
How long can the military, primarily the Army and Marine Corp but mostly the Army sustain the current effort in Iraq?
How many deployments is enough? For example some soldiers and marines are on their third tours. At what point will they say enough is enough.
Everyone talks as if staying in Iraq is simply a matter of the president setting the policy. But in reality the health of the military is really the critical question. I think it's safe to say that the Sunni's and Shia's will not be holding hands anytime soon. With that in mind it seems as if the military will be in Iraq for a few more years. During that time the military will begin to tire even more so than it already is. And lets not forget Iraq isn't our only enemy.
there's no way that we will still have the same troop levels in Iraq for a few more years.
The only Presidential candidates that will have a chance at the general election are those with a concrete plan of troop drawdown.
We're going to have less troops there because that is what the majority in a democracy wants whether or not 9-10 ivory tower military or foreign policy stategists would agree it's the right thing to do!
The mob rules!
whereas you are not (But in reality the health of the military is really the critical question.). The critical question is never the question, the health of the Republic is. The health of the military may or may not contribute to the health of the Republic. Although I will confess that I find great irony in the socialist engineers who never seem concerned about the health of the military on questions such as women in combat or gays in the military are suddenly concerned about the future health of the military now that the there are credible reports the situation is improving.
Oh, and actually, I'm not overly concerned about the health of the military either, except vis a vie Democrats trying to lose the war by underfunding them. People in the military, especially in the lower echelons, seem to have an amazing ability to adapt and overcome any non-political threat thrown at them.
My "critical" question is relevant to the current policy.
There will be a point when the military can no longer sustain its current OPTEMPO. It might come in the form of lower reenlistments due to multiple deployments, or it may be an issue of replenishing the ranks with new personnel. Maybe the exodus of captains and lieutenants, as well as lower and mid-grade NCOs will be the critical factor.
I'm pretty sure there are a number of senior military officers and NCOs that would agree, at least some of my more recent conversations with old friends seem to support this.
Not sure what you mean by the social engineer crack, never thought of myself as an engineer. To be honest I'm a Redleg and damn proud of it.
I do have some experience with the Army at least 20 years worth that I can remember. Having served in the "lower echelons" I will agree that we can overcome and adapt but the health of the military is a "big picture" issue that shouldn't be ignored.
v/r
SFC TJ (USA, RET)
has been predicted since 2004. Our enemies have never defeated us by betting on the inability of our troops, instead they bet on the softness of commitment by the middle and the reliability of the defeat caucus on the left.
Don't worry about the military, if things end badly it won't be because they lost the battle, it will be because we quit on them.
reinlisted (after their second tour in Ramadi) and then requested reassignment to another unit because the word is that their unit will be deploying to Oki in December and these guys want to go back to Iraq.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I see this all the time "we" there is no we. There are those who serve and those who don't. Some people can't serve because they are not qualified either morally, physically, or due to education although nowadays the Army is taking non-grads.
Now if you are fit of age, and able to serve but you've chosen not to then you are not "we".
If you are currently serving then good for you at least you are walking the walk.
If you are unable to serve you should be out recruiting or volunteering, or contributing some blood, sweat, or cash for the effort. Note simply paying your taxes does not count.
We don't need supporters we need boots on the ground. It's too easy to say I support the troops then go back to watching American Idol.
I see this all the time "we" there is no we. There are those who serve and those who don't. Some people can't serve because they are not qualified either morally, physically, or due to education although nowadays the Army is taking non-grads.
Now if you are fit of age, and able to serve but you've chosen not to then you are not "we".
If you are currently serving then good for you at least you are walking the walk.
If you are unable to serve you should be out recruiting or volunteering, or contributing some blood, sweat, or cash for the effort. Note simply paying your taxes does not count.
We don't need supporters we need boots on the ground. It's too easy to say I support the troops then go back to watching American Idol.
...please reread his post. If you're not sure why you're doing this, re-reread it until you are sure.
Moe
PS: We* don't tolerate use of the chickenhawk smear here. Please calibrate your future posts accordingly.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*Being defined as "me, and the other site moderators."
for victory are that portion of we that want to quit.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
OK, good point and I absolutely agree that we've never been defeated by the inability of our troops. Our troops, our might, and our integrity are in place, operational, and second to none. I may not always express myself correctly (no "secrete" right?) but ultimately, the left aren't to blame entirely. They're simply maximizing on an opportune time of shortcomings and lack of honesty. It's beyond me that the Bush Admin continues to feed fodder for them to exploit our need to accomplish our goals (and yes, it's a pretty tall order) in order to appease the patience of the country. This isn't leadership by any stretch. Bush has repeatedly said this is a long term war, only to digress and give hints of non existent successes and possible short term engagement. The truth is, successes will be short coming and engagements will be long term. GWB has two choices; come clean with the fact that this isn't a cakewalk and things aren't rosie or simply pass it on to the next guy. My fear is that the next guy will want to withdraw. I personally think the voters will pick the next guy. I hope I'm wrong.
he is so at home with them, and has such an honest affection for them. I saw one soldier, as he reached out to shake the President's hand -- the President stopped to salute the soldier before shaking hands.
he is at his best when he is with the troops...