BUSH’S IRAQ UNRECOGNIZABLE FROM THE REAL THING
President George Bush gave his 6th prime time speech since his presidency began in the same cocoon that he has comfortably ensconced himself since the Iraq War began.
The fact that he’s given so few speeches talking to the American people about a cause he himself has identified as vital to the War on Terror, failing spectacularly to explain as honestly and forthrightly as possible where we are, where we need to be, and where we are going in Iraq, guarantees that the American people have stopped listening to him.
In short, his credibility when talking about the war is as low as it could possibly go. It is his own fault. He can command attention whenever he desires it and the news nets must cover what he says. But over the years, his start and stop, herky jerky efforts to rally the American people to his policies has fallen far short of what was needed and necessary. Instead, he allowed his political opponents to define the war, the mission, even the president’s own motives in going to war while substituting a narrative that savaged him and people who supported him.
It would help if the President would give us the castor oil with the honey when he talks about Iraq. He never has. The Iraq he talked about in his speech does not exist. It is not a place of “freedom” or “democracy.” A legitimate argument can be made that it doesn’t even have a government. Holding elections does not define a nation as a democracy. There is no freedom without citizens being secure in their property and lives. The government in Iraq cannot guarantee either and in fact, elements of that government are consciously engaged in activities to dispossess Sunni Muslims of both.
For all the security gains in some of the Sunni provinces and all the good work being done with the tribes in enlisting them to help fight al-Qaeda, there are other areas of the country where the situation on the ground has not gotten any better and is demonstrably worse. As the Brits abandon the south, the militias are taking over and will eventually fight for control, the government in Baghdad be damned. Iran is salivating at the opportunities offered by this “civil war within a civil war” and will only gain in influence whoever comes out on top.
Our friends the Kurds, patiently waiting for the day when they can make a clean break from Iraq and declare their independence (along with fellow Kurds across the border in Iran and Turkey who are carrying out terrorist attacks against civilian targets in those countries) are experiencing hit and run attacks by Shias who seek control of the vital oil center of Kirkuk. Car bombs, suicide bombs, assassinations, and even the occasional firefight has broken out in recent months as both sides gauge the possibilities of an America that is about to pull out.
And Baghdad? No one controls Baghdad. Not the government. Not the militias. Not the criminal gangs that continue to terrorize residents almost as much as the sectarian gangs that are driving people out of their homes and the death squads who still manage a tidy body count every day despite the increased presence of American and Iraqi troops.
The Iraq I have just partially described (don’t get me started on the police, the army, the Council of Representatives, the Interior Ministry, the corruption, or that empty suit of a sectarian gangster Maliki) is Iraq as it is - a morass of security, social, political, economic, and psychic problems that no army on the planet can fix. It is also an Iraq that George Bush didn’t come close to acknowledging as existing in his speech tonight.
We are all big boys and girls. George Bush treats us like children, afraid that telling us the truth of what is going on in Iraq or at least being realistic about describing the situation will scare us or cause us to want to hide under the bed. It is depressing. The disconnect between the Iraq Bush describes and the real thing is not lost on the American people who I believe would respond much more positively to Bush if he didn’t try and sugarcoat the situation.
Even the gains in Anbar and elsewhere have been exaggerated now and war supporters have latched on to them like a dying man grasping a leaky life preserver. Contrast Petraeus’s calmly rational assessment of those gains with many on the right who believe the “Anbar Awakening” is going to sweep across the country and bring “victory.” I may be mistaken but even George Bush has stopped talking about “victory” in Iraq and has substituted the word “success.” Even that term is a stretch. When we depart, I hardly think we will be able to claim the Iraq we leave behind will be a success. It will be a mess. But I think the best we can hope for at this point is that it won’t be an unmitigated disaster. That result is worth fighting for because it is necessary to our national security that Iraq not be a failed state and Iran not be rewarded for its meddling.
I always expect too much from Bush which is why I’m always disappointed. Perhaps because in these perilous times, I think we should expect more from our presidents than the rhetoric of the stump. Bush is not a bad man nor is he stupid. He is simply inadequate.
That may be the most damning thing you can say about any president.
UPDATE
For reaction, I always check Allah first since he’s only half as cynical as I am and half again more brilliant:
Four minutes of highlights for you including the surprise announcement of the night — plans for an “enduring relationship†with Iraq, presumably on the model of South Korea, that will involve a “security engagement that extends beyond my presidency.†That’s an odd thing to announce now, when he’s trying to reap the political benefits of a (very limited) withdrawal, but there you go. It also flies in the face not only of Sadr’s nationalist rhetoric but poll after poll of Iraqi citizens who say they want the United States out (eventually). Bush wants U.S. troops there to keep Tehran on its toes, though, and also to act as a “tripwire†(again, a la South Korea) in case Iranian forces try to assert themselves inside the country. The more menacing Iran is, the more you can expect Iraqis to grudgingly accept the idea, so long as the “security†part of the enduring relationship involves a small number of troops and, in all likelihood, bases in Kurdistan.
The other scoop is that he’s asked Petraeus to give another progress report in March. The Republicans up for re-election next year will have their life vests on and will have already been seated in the lifeboats by then, so unless that report’s as rosy as the desert sun, it’s game over.
I wasn’t as surprised about the “enduring relationship” theme as I was, like Allah, disconcerted by the timing.
And I agree about the Iraqi people’s attitude toward the Iranians. Many on the left have a heart attack every time Maliki and Ahmadinejad meet, breathlessly telling us of the coming Shia convergence between the Iraqis and Iranians.
Both peoples may be Shias. But there was the little matter of the Iran-Iraq War not to mention the historical enmity between Arabs and Persians. The Iraqis don’t trust the Iranians, period.
My own pessimism about the political will necessary to sustain any kind of serious effort in Iraq matches Allah’s own. By March, there will be general agreement to draw down faster than the 5 combat brigades Petraeus has called for. By election day 2008, we’ll have less than half the troops in Iraq that we do now.
Thanks for that cheerful assessment, Rick. Leave it to you to always find a dark cloud within a silver lining.
Comment by MarkJ — 9/13/2007 @ 11:01 pm
On this you are right Rick.
If he would just be honest with us about the situation, I think the American people would give him more time and latitude. I wish they wouldn’t but they probably would.
He can’t do it though. I don’t think its in his character to admit a mistake, and laying the cards on the table would lead to the obvious (and at this point irrevelant) conclusion that he blew it. Big time. He’d rather go down clutching his dream than open his eyes, let go of the “beacon of Democracy” genie that naver came out of the bottle and swim for the shore thru the mud.
Sad thing is, his denial kills soldiers and civilians.
Comment by busboy33 — 9/13/2007 @ 11:45 pm
Thank you.
Comment by tHePeOPle — 9/14/2007 @ 2:21 am
“The Iraq I have just partially described (don’t get me started on the police, the army, the Council of Representatives, the Interior Ministry, the corruption, or that empty suit of a sectarian gangster Maliki) is Iraq as it is – a morass of security, social, political, economic, and psychic problems that no army on the planet can fix.”
Now that you see it clearly, can you explain why this situation is worth the Death of one more US soldier? What would you say if you had to explain to a grieving mother why it was worth keeping him in Iraq?
“Many on the left have a heart attack every time Maliki and Ahmadinejad meet, breathlessly telling us of the coming Shia convergence between the Iraqis and Iranians. Both peoples may be Shias. But there was the little matter of the Iran-Iraq War not to mention the historical enmity between Arabs and Persians. The Iraqis don’t trust the Iranians, period.”
As for this, you are generalising the people with their leaders. Iraqis in general may not trust the Iranians, but the Iraqi Shia elites (Of whom Malaki is one) certainly do. You know full well where Malaki was during the Iran Iraq war, and it wasn’t in Iraq shooting at Persians.
Not that I see a big problem with these neighbours having good relations, but don’t kid yourselves that they are going to be anything less than close allies.
Comment by Drongo — 9/14/2007 @ 4:10 am
Drongo, you have a very curious definition of the word “leaders”…
I haven’t had the impression in a long time that anyone listens to Maliki.
And which splinter group exactly are you talking about when you say “they are going to be [close allies]“? Maliki’s kleptocrats? The Madhi Army? Sistani? Al Qaeda? I’m sure you can’t be talking about Iraq, because most Iraqis aren’t “close allies” with Iraq.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — 9/14/2007 @ 5:33 am
“Drongo, you have a very curious definition of the word “leaders ”
Well, it is as good a term as any. If you prefer we could say “People with the power of the purse in Iraq” (though that is pretty touch and go) or “Member sof the US backed government in Bagdhad”.
“And which splinter group exactly are you talking about when you say “they are going to be [close allies]â€? ”
They guys in nominal charge of the country, SIIC, Dawa, etc.
“Maliki’s kleptocrats?”
Yes.
“The Madhi Army?”
No.
“Sistani?”
Jury’s out.
“Al Qaeda?”
Certainly not.
“I’m sure you can’t be talking about Iraq, because most Iraqis aren’t “close allies†with Iraq.”
No, I am explicitly not talking about the Iraqi populace as a whole.
Comment by Drongo — 9/14/2007 @ 5:56 am
Rumsfeld Incorporated and Bush’s concrete loyalty to him got us into this mess (i.e. poor post-war planning), but I honestly think we now have the right people and policy at work in Iraq, its just about four years late in getting there.
That said, does anyone else have a better idea at how to hold off at cataclysmic and genocidal disaster that would happen if we fail at stabilizing Iraq?
Who here actually thinks that a failure and collapse in Iraq won’t have any tangible effect to them here at home?
[Crickets chirping]
I think his speech last night finally outlined a realistic end-game: hold, stabilize, drawdown, leave defensive garrisons in place for deterrence (i.e. West Germany, South Korea, etc.). No more talk about victory, democracy, etc. I think as long as Iran isn’t in the picture and the Iraqi’s aren’t shooting at each other, we can call it a draw. I doubt it will get any better than that, but at least it would be stable and hold off the real blood bath that would ensue as history has shown us.
He also played his trump card to the Democrats by making it clear that there won’t be a huge or total withdrawal of forces under his administration. He knows that if they win the White House, any significant withdrawal they order that then leads to catastrophe would put the final blame on them. I’d honestly be shocked if they did that anyway. They’ll play to their base during the election, but reality will still keep us in Iraq for years to come no matter who wins in 2008.
Comment by johnmc — 9/14/2007 @ 7:57 am
Good post Rick. This war’s certainly been fought ‘on the cheap’. Not enough troops, good leadership and yes, truth.
Comment by gregdn — 9/14/2007 @ 8:23 am
He also played his trump card to the Democrats by making it clear that there won’t be a huge or total withdrawal of forces under his administration. He knows that if they win the White House, any significant withdrawal they order that then leads to catastrophe would put the final blame on them.
This is cynicism on an unprecedented scale. This is what we’ve come to in Iraq? How can we pin the blame for the final carnage and catastrophe on the Democrats?
What started with weapons of mass destruction and evolved to spreading democracy and freedom has now become nothing more than “we can’t leave because there would be genocide”.
How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake? You may not like John Kerry, but he nailed it way back in 1971.
Comment by Pug — 9/14/2007 @ 8:36 am
“Who here actually thinks that a failure and collapse in Iraq won’t have any tangible effect to them here at home?”
Hasn’t effected me so far. How has it effected you?
Anyway, any conceivable collapse of Iraq is going to effect me far less than a possible war with Iran which is a serious risk the longer we stay in Iraq.
Comment by Drongo — 9/14/2007 @ 8:37 am
That was his 8′th speech, not his 6′th… look it up.
Comment by Chuck @ Detroit Times — 9/14/2007 @ 10:06 am
Another fine Young Republican leader who would agree with you about the President’s speech:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/118976097330620.xml&coll=2
Comment by Other Ed — 9/14/2007 @ 11:44 am
@johnmc:
“I think his speech last night finally outlined a realistic end-game: hold, stabilize, drawdown, leave defensive garrisons in place for deterrence (i.e. West Germany, South Korea, etc.). ”
Thats not a strategy. Hold and Stabilize are goals. Strategies are how you achieve goals. Do I have a strategy for the football game this afternoon? Sure — score points, and stop the other team from getting any. W has always been great at these vague, good-sounding goals (protect America, spread democracy, stop terrorism, etc.) The trouble is, he doesn’t have a strategy for accomplishing the goals.
Drawdown — he’s planning a drawdown? I didn’t hear that. He’s willing to go back to roughly pre-surge levels. Generous of him, since they were going to start rotating out beginning in April anyway regardless of his desires. After that, he’s willing to withdraw most of the troops once he gets the “hold and stabilize” thingy . . . which was the plan since 2003. In other words, he’ll drawdown the troop level after we win (stabilizing Iraq). How has he ponied up anything new?
Comment by busboy33 — 9/14/2007 @ 1:14 pm
johnmc:
Any comparisons with our occupation of S. Korea go out the window when the people we’re supposedly protecting start killing our troops.
Comment by gregdn — 9/14/2007 @ 3:06 pm
You are cutting President Bush too much slack when you say “he allowed his political opponents to define the war, the mission, even the president’s own motives in going to war while substituting a narrative that savaged him and people who supported him.”
Look at the realities in Iraq and play back in your mind the statements and decisions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer and the rest of the crew — they’re preposterous of themselves; no comments from opponents are needed. Play back in your mind how a legion of inexperienced political hires were sent to run Iraq, the museum looting, Abu Ghraib, no WMDs, etc., etc., etc. — no comments from opponents are needed. There has been no “narrative substituted.” This story is all Bush’s.
Comment by LarryRiedman — 9/14/2007 @ 4:15 pm
Obama: Democrats don’t have Iraq votes…
Despite the Iraq war’s unpopularity, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday th…
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 9/14/2007 @ 4:33 pm
Mr. Bush Takes Us On The 8th Flight Of Fancy On Iraq…
By:Â Megan DonovanÂ
Well that was like a 17 minute and 20 second mushroom trip. At about 2 minutes into the speech I realized I had assumed my usual “listening to Bush” stance. One eyebrow quizzically raised, jaw slightly drop…
Trackback by Cest Moi Political Blog — 9/9/2008 @ 7:46 pm