Bush's speech?

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

President Bush gave a speech at Fort Bragg this evening with the goal of the White House taking back the message and image battle that has been going on domestically regarding the 2nd Gulf War:

He met with troops to address the overall status of the mission with a speech that talked a lot about the troops in terms of the mission. The goal was to portray support for the troops which has not wained with support for the mission in Iraq which has deteriorated significantly.

He also repeated the message that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism - and redefined the scope of the war as pertaining to terrorism and saying that the only exit strategy was that the Iraqi military "stand up" a statement, in which the very wording seemed to signal that this was in doubt. The logic for going to war in Iraq was officially redefined as keeping Al Qaeda out of the area - however that is a very broad and weak definition of the scope of a war as compared to an imminent risk of WMD usage and the justification as a preemptive strike.

This argument also seems circular because there was no Al Qaeda problem in Iraq before the war. It seems that overall Bush and his administration seem out of touch with the public's view that he was not essentially honest about the reasons for the run up to the war and did not follow up with a specified plan with an exit strategy - in essence he rushed to break Iraq and now we have collectively bought it.

[SFHoya99]

I don't buy a single word Bush says about Iraq anymore. He and his admin have contradicted themselves, and had the facts contradict them so many times it isn't funny.

Regardless, he's right that we shouldn't be pulling out. It wasn't the right decision to go in, but some good has come of it (and much bad), and pulling out is likely to erase much of the good that has occurred and eliminate the possibility of more good to come.

However, he has still failed to deliver any real "Marshall Plan" which I viewed as proof all along he cared nothing for the Iraqi people. He still doesn't.

[AustinHoya03]

I think you misunderstood the "goal" of the speech, which you identify as "portraying support for the troops." The goal of the speech was to remind people that the United States in engaged in a global war on terrorism and that Iraq is a key battle in that war. Hence the constant September 11th reminders.

I also don't recall Bush saying that the goal was specifically to rid Iraq of al-Qaeda. If I recall correctly, the phrases he used to describe the insurgents were fairly vague. (Foreign combatants, jihadists, etc.)

I have supported the war from Day 1 and continue to support it. However, I give the speech, and to some degree, current administration policies, an F.

The reason support for the war is declining is that it is difficult to know what is going on in Iraq besides American soldiers being killed or wounded. There are two types of news coverage coming out of the country: coverage of positive political change and coverage of gigantic suicide bombings. These news stories seem diametrically opposed, and give the impression that positive political change merely masks the terrible security situation for ordinary Iraqis. As long as there is no real change in the number of large-scale bombings carried out by the insurgents, and no sharp decline in the number of American casualties, support for the war will continue to decline no mater how brilliant a constitution the Iraqi politicians write.

That is unless the administration sets some concrete goals. By goals I don't mean "We'll pull out of Iraq on December 31, 2006." There should be smaller goals, like "once we train 10,000 Iraqi police officers and work with them for six months in the field, we will re-assign the soldiers formerly training them to fighting the insurgency elsewhere, and let the Iraqis do the job they have been trained to do." Maybe we're doing this already, but how would we know? The administration chooses to insert tired rhetoric into its statements when it should be providing this type of detail. All the administration will say is that we're making "progress," and we'll begin pulling out once the Iraqis can fend for themselves. But without goals or measuring sticks, how will we decide when Iraq can stand on its own two feet?

If we continue to set our sights on a goal that is fuzzy at best, and do not start setting concrete goals both for ourselves and the Iraqi forces, support for the war will continue to decline. Reminding us that we're in a global war on terrorism, and that jihadists attacked America on September 11th isn't going to cut it for much longer.

[david]

Long ago, Bush lost any credibility he ever had with me. This didnt change that at all.

[FormerHoya]

Isn't this better suited to the Blue and Gray Board?

[showcase]

In the pre-speech press, I understood that Dubya would be making an important speech that would lay out the strategy for winning in Iraq. Apparently, that strategy is more of the same.

This 'war on terrorism' is a farce. Are the terrorists there because US troops are there, or did we send troops to Iraq because it was rife with terrorists (and if you think this is a chicken and egg type question, you're kidding yourself).

Dubya's war on terrorism has the most powerful military in the world today wasting itself away in some tragic version of urban Whak-a-Mole. If Duyba and the neocons at PNAC really had to begin a 'war on terrorism,' is this really the ideal scenario? Just thinking of Wolfowitz glibly telling Congress in 2002 that it beggars reason to believe the occupation of Iraq would take more troops than the conquest makes me want to puke.

[Deleted]

What I find most interesting is how the tide has started to turn even within usually staunch Bush supporters. One of my best friends is a Marine lieutenant, and has been telling me that with each casualty and very little progress being made on the ground (very disturbing to hear accounts of how quickly the Iraqi security/police forces abandon their positions), more and more military-types are questioning the reason behind a continued presence with no discernable plan. On top of that, support is dropping in what can best be described as military communities (communities that support a large base or installation) as more and more hometown folks are dying abroad.

Also, the notion that the resistance is in its last throws is apparently a joke. I think most of us see what's going on on tv and think that, but its a very different thing to hear it from someone who knows.

[nychoya3]

This speech was about one thing: Poll numbers. It's been many years since a president had approval ratings this low only 6 months into his second term. It's even worse when you deaggregate things, as basically the only issue where he still commands the trust of a majority of the American people is the war on terror generally. Private accounts are all but dead. Bolton isn't going to be confirmed. Simply put, he's well on his way to spending the rest of his administration as a lame duck, and that's not what he wants. Iraq is a gaping wound, for Bush, but more importantly, for the USA.

I don't have any good options for what he should be doing. I'm not a fan of timetables or withdrawal deadlines, but simply put, someone needs to start making hard decisions. Political progress is great, but building a genuine democracy is a groundup exercise - it isn't imposed from on high. Larry Diamond - once of the CPA, now a critic - has a new book on this subject that's very good. The daily toll of violence may not disrupt the political process, such as it is, but it impedes the building of a genuine civil society of the sort that Sadaam stifled. Religious and ethnic ties are part of that, but they can't be the only thing. All attempts to analytically measure our progress that I've seen, hile they certainly aren't perfect, have shown an ugly picture of our progress on everything other than the macro political situation.

The media has really started to turn on Bush too. The reporting on the speech has been very much more critical than the deference he's accustomed to on national security issues. Terry Moran said on ABC that the only applause came when Bush aides began clapping, after which the soldiers and families dutifully joined in. We're sinking in Iraq and Bush is sinking in the US. Unfortunately, the response to every problem from Bush is to dig in, stay the course, and keep pushing. I just pray it's not as disasterous as I personally expect that it will be.

[Nevada Hoya]

I keep expecting news about finding WMD. I think W should commission OJ to help in the search for them, because he did such a good job of finding his wife's killer.

I have never been for the war; I think it diluted our strategy in going after the terrorists. This diversion, I believe, has been a recruiting boom for Al Q.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

I think that if the speech was about poll ratings then it was a poorly written speech because the message seemed to be "stay the course" when most Americans don't really seem to like the course all that much. IMHO, the only thing it did was rally those who support the war and cause people who didn't support it to see who was getting drafted by the NBA.

[AustinHoya03]

nychoya3 said:

All attempts to analytically measure our progress that I've seen, hile they certainly aren't perfect, have shown an ugly picture of our progress on everything other than the macro political situation.

This is probably the most comprehensive "attempt to analytically measure our progress" out there for anyone who is interested.

www.brookings.edu/iraqindex

[david]

I think NevadaHoya is exactly right.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Interesting post Austin - I tried to skim through a lot of it during my work today - it seems like a lot of the numbers and graphs are incomplete or based on estimates - but certainly not all. Some numbers that surprised me was that:
there is still an average of only 9 hours of electricity in any given day,

the disparity between views of Iraq's future in Sunni controlled areas and in the nationwide number (I am not sure if the nation-wide numbers include the Sunni numbers or not - if they do that is even more interesting because it would mean the Kurds and Shiites have radically different attitudes than the Sunnis - either way its probably not a good thing that such a disparity exists),

the non-American Aid graph on page 29 is very telling,

there is a large spread of possible levels of unemployment,

there seems to be a general correlation between the Sunni numbers and a general support for the insurgency and a lack of confidence in the coalition and the transitional government,

the poll on page 36 paints a pretty negative picture of the future - i'd like to see an update of it

[vagrant]

For the record, I opposed our entering the war then, but can not see us leaving now. I think we are being somewhat narrow minded to assume that our interest in terrorism in Iraq, prior to 9/11, was limited to those actions that directly affected the U.S. There is irrefutable evidence that Sadam supported both logistically and financially suicide bombers in Israel. There were Al-Quaeda camps in Iran. And without a doubt the stories of massive genocide can be considered nothing but terrorism. Whether you support Pres. Bush or the war, please don't forget that terrorist acts against the world exists, and these acts of terrorism and their perpetrators must be stopped. If no one else will come to the aid of the innocent, then we must, as we always have.
I know that some of you will experience the gut reaction that if I feel this way, I must be either stupid or misinformed, please take a moment and accept this post as an expression of my opinion, and not as a disparagement of yours.

[Nevada Hoya]

I guess this a good place to consider the whole philosophy of dealing with terrorism. I think we are kidding ourselves, if we believe we can kill or capture all the terrorists in the world. It almost seems as if, for each one that is killed two spring up to take his/her place. This war on terrorism will never be like a war against a country or countries. You cannot define the enemy or the boundaries of the enemy. The terrorist lives in hiding, maybe next to you or me, but surely in countries in the middle east, Africa, Asia, and Europe. We cannot invade each of those countries to try to root out the terrorists. We don't have enough resources, and even if we did we would encounter resistance every step of the way from the poplulace of that country.

On the other hand you don't cave into the terrorists' demands. This generates the idea that terrorism works. So what is the answer? I don't know, but I think we were on the right path before our deviation from the plan (i.e., not staying the course) by going after Al Q. and ObL. Most of the world had sympathy for our venture. And in the world of global economies the perception of good and evil is an important factor in swaying world opinion. And in these vague wars that is a good thing.

Also, we have to get back to what made our great, and that is not necessarily spreading our economy to all parts of the world to make a few rich. We have always been a haven for the downtrodden. In the G8 summit the aid to Africa is a start. When there are natural disasters, like the tsunami in Indonesia, earthquakes in Iran, continue to offer aid (with no strings attached) to these countries. Continue to support Israel, but make sure there is a just peace there with all parties represented. It is not bad to be strong, only strong and unjust. We have to get some of the good will of the world back on our side.