George Bush's January 10, 2006 Speech
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published January 11, 2007, 9:56 am in Military / Foreign policy.
Bush's speech finally came last night, and I want to analyze it here. It's still funny that there was so much reaction to it even though it had not actually been done yet. Everyone knew that his plan in Iraq would mirror the AEI plan (which I discussed in a previous column), but it seems strange to react before it is done. But this is the nature of politics--people are always in preemptive rhetorical strike mode, ready to denounce someone's actions before the actions are committed. It makes the denouncer the better one, the smarter one, the one who knew it all from the beginning.
Before the speech was made, people had various things to say. Some did denounce it: Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) said "'I have deep skepticism about it -- about a surge addressing the root causes of the mistrust and hatred that sects have for each other,' Snowe said. 'That's what I expressed. The fact of the matter is that the American people don't support this war and the way it has evolved because they see the Iraqis fighting among themselves instead of for themselves.'"
I understand this viewpoint, even though I don't agree with it. But I'll try to talk more about reactions after I review the speech.
Some officials suggested what Bush needed to do in his speech--"Duberstein said Bush 'needs to explain to the American people the lessons that he has learned, which will persuade them that he has gotten the message for a new approach to Iraq'" (Bush Works To Rally Support for Iraq 'Surge'). Or "Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster, said the speech is 'going to be a crucial component of how the American people re-look at the president for the last two years' of his term. The challenge facing the White House, he said, 'is people have to view the speech and say, "Oh, this is something different, and he's got a plan and it's got a shot at improving the situation. It's not just, quote, stay the course, unquote."'"
Bush took these criticisms to heart. Let's look directly at the speech.
He begins by describing how he sees the war in Iraq: "Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror and our safety here at home." That's what we're doing there, and he has to set that up at the beginning. The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror, and it is a part of protecting us here in the U.S. If he doesn't make that clear at the beginning, then it may seem as if this is just another civil war. If he can state this at the beginning, then the U.S. has reason to keep listening, to want to win.
Then he discusses the elections from 2005 and how he "thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together and, that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops." Nevermind that the mission was accomplished in 2003, according to Bush. It's a cheap shot, I know, but I still can't get over that speech and banner on the aircraft carrier.
Then some interesting things happen. He admits that 2006 was bloody, but he blames it all on "Al Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents" who "recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis." It was only after "they blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate" that the Shites became involved in the conflict.
Notice that he has to mention Al Qaida and the Sunnis as the bad guys here. They started it all. He has to do this because those are the ones we went over to stop in the first place. They're the evil ones behind the 9/11 plot and the reason why Hussein was a threat. They're still the primary problem in Iraq, so Bush was not wrong about his initial assumption that Iraq needed to be invaded and Hussein overthrown. It's also important that Bush does not set up the Shites as the aggressors, for they are the ones who control most of the Iraqi government, and he cannot afford to completely alienate them. It was only after the destruction of the mosque that "radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today."
And then Bush does what everyone knows he needed to do: he admist responsibility. He says that the situation is "unacceptable," praises the troops and says they have done everything right, but then says, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
That is a change, if ever there was one. This is a different Bush. If not exactly repentant, he at least admits that he has made mistakes. Not fundamental mistakes, mind you. Not mistakes such as invading Iraq in the first place, but mistakes once we got there. He even admits that the joy of the 2005 Iraqi elections may have been a mistake, because things turned out so differently. But these mistakes are just judgment mistakes, not worldview mistakes.
And then: "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq."
Good for you, Mr. President. I'm glad you can finally say it. It's no longer "absolutely, we're winning." Now it's that we need a change in strategy becuase the old one isn't working. A lot of others have been saying it for a long time, but Bush needed to realize it. Now he has.
Some things still irk me, though, such as what he does next. He says that we need a change in strategy, but everyone agrees that we need to win over there, that failure would be devastating becuase "radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.
"On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq."
I don't mind the logic there. The way he outlines it works for me. What I don't like it that he continually references 9/11, period. He continually hints that winning in Iraq (and thus toppling Hussein in the first place) was a way to protect from more 9/11-style attacks. And that suggestion is misleading. I think more people need to call him on this, to say that we know Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11. Yes, it certainly could have something to do with it now, but it didn't back then. We created the situation that has made Iraq an al Qaeda haven.
Bush then agrees with the AEI report that Baghdad is the key, that most violence occurs there, and that where Baghdad goes, so goes Iraq. Then he addresses another of the criticisms laid against him--the fact that he doesn't listen to his military commanders. He says "Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work." That's a change, too. He's telling all of those people who claim he doesn't listen that he had in fact listened to his generals, and they are a part of the new plan.
The way he outlines the rest of the plan is masterful, too.
He says that it is primarily an Iraqi effort. Those who say that the Iraqis are not helping themselves are wrong. Look, here's proof. They will be in charge of Baghdad.
But they need our help, too: "This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations." No new news there, but at least he has finally said it.
Another criticism is addressed: "Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs." Many have said that a major problem was that the troops had no clear mission and that they were in a strange lead/support role with the Iraqis. No longer.
Then he states that the new strategy will work because it will allow the troops to go into every neighborhood and fight against any resistance, which is really means that they will be able to fight any militia, death squad, etc. that opposes them, including the Mahdi army. These forces will no longer have the protection of the Iraqi government. Bush says that he has "made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people. And it will lose the support of the Iraqi people....The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation."
Good. That's a bold move, and I hope Maliki can keep it up.
Then this gem: "This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering."
Jabs like this I don't understand. Why does Bush have to do this? I mean, the guy was on a role, and now he has to hint that showing attacks on TV is a way to help the terrorists? Is he saying that the media should not report attacks against Americans? Come on, Mr. President, I was rooting for you.
The rest of the speech isn't that interesting. It says that the Iraqis will take most of the responsibility for the security, that they will continue to fight against al Qaeda, that they will attempt to use diplomacy and build support outside Iraq.
There is this nugget, though: "The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life."
I may have to discuss this idea in greater depth later. Bush suggests here that the ideological struggle is basically "freedom" versus "extremism." The question, then, is what extremism means. Does "extremism" mean Islam? Can it also be Christian, Hindu, Communist? Or can freedom--democracy--lead to extermism, as it did in Iran? I'll have to have a full report on this, as well as the reactions to the speech later.
Let me give my appraisal of Bush's speech in two words: "Good job." The logic works, even if Bush still has to get his worldview in there.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Leave a comment