Commentary On The Speech
Okay, well, first off: “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility belongs to me”. That’s good…but not so good was the President’s delivery at the beginning, which was sadly off the mark – however, he did get into a groove eventually. Some of what this viewer wanted to see was there: an acknowledgement that we must be allowed to go after all the bad guys without interference, most particularly. I had also wanted to hear where the troops were coming from – that was absent. I also didn’t really hear about the moderate coalition, despite leaks to the contrary prior to the speech.
A mixed bag, in other words, and not a home run. Yet I found much to lift my spirits – tough talk on Iran and Syria, and an outline of a plan that sounds plausible: two big questions, though, one in our control and one not:
1. Will Maliki live up to his end where he has failed us so many times before?
2. Is 20,000 enough?
More later, no doubt…your thoughts?…
UPDATE 9:00 p.m.: Transcript here…
UPDATE 10:03 p.m.: This passage has to be considered one of the keys:
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
So you liked the tough talk on Iran and Syria. And if they keep pouring arms and insurgents into Iraq, we’ll do…what? I wasn’t quite so enamored with that line. It’s all hat and no cattle.
Just got back from something sucktastic; thanks for the transcript.
On quick cursory read: we’re precisely where we don’t want to be: relying on the good faith efforts of another country (a nebulous state with a weak, maybe untrustworthy leader, to boot). I find it very strange, if not simply incoherent, to posit Egypt, Jordan, and S.A. as countries that care about “freedom and moderation.” If we’re going in for a dime, may as well go in for a dollar and add Iran & Syria to that list of countries that don’t give a sh*t about freedom and moderation.
That said, whenever I read or listen to Bush’s speeches, I genuinely think he’s a good guy and trying to do the right thing. Not so bright, and he doesn’t give a lick about the rule of law, but he’s trying to do right (as wrong and misprioritized as his idea of that may be).
The President’s Speech
Here are some key point’s in the President’s speech,On protecting the American people: The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run,
120k! Where would they come from? You’d have to reinstitute the draft…
Eric, I hear what you’re saying…he talked tough, but didn’t lay out consequences. Fair enough…
jpe,
“Exactly where we don’t want to be”
What if the troops were still slugging it out on thier way to Bagdad? What if we had lost 10, 20 thousand troops already? It could be a LOT worse.
Sure, it could’ve been worse as far as casualties go, but it’s a pretty bad strategic position to be in. People on the right are right about casualties: they’re obviously tragic, but these are volunteers, and proud to do what they do. And that’s….well, it’s awe-inspiring. So I’m certainly not one of those lefties that gets all Sheehan about troop deaths. What we should be concerned about is that strategic position.
Bush at least seems to be on top of the possible ramifications vis-a-vis potential for wider conflict. Part of bringing Iran and Syria to the table, though, is to mitigate those concerns. What we don’t want to do is keep the Persians and Arabs at a distrustful distance.
That was rambly. Apologies.
With all due respect Kevin I absolutely hate it when I hear that argument and my first response is always; why don’t you go tell that to the families who have lost loved ones in the war or even to the men who lived but will never be the same, and see if they really think it could get much worse?
With that said, I served in Iraq for a year and I felt the reasons for why I was there were just. However, I did not sign up to stand by and watch my country do nothing in retaliation when there was proof of Iranian compliance in numerous attacks that resulted in the deaths of American servicemen. I know there are diplomatic subtleties that must be met and an attack on Iran would certainly provoke an even more active Iranian subversion program (or even open hostilities). That is why I really hope Bush is serious about this plan (particularly the points on Iran and Syria and untying the American forces hand’s) and is willing to invest whatever political capital he may have left into it.
Not at all…I’m genuinely interested in what everyone thinks, so ramble away…
I apologize for rambling as well.
Oops sorry Mark a little late
That’s for sure. As Bush himself noted, though, that’ll turn on Maliki. Sadr et al are the exact opposite of what we want (my liberal brethren object to taking him out on the grounds of unanticipated consequence, not on shared values).
I say nuts to that, though; if we can take him out, so much the better.
Whatever happened to Sistani? He’s taking his quietism awfully literally.
The problem with “taking out” Al-Sadr is his inherited position. Sadr’s father was killed by Saddam and was a martyr to the Shia’s. Muqtada, whom some of our interpreters called “playstation” because he did nothing to avenge his father’s death by defying Saddam in any way, by virtue of being his son is revered by the Shia’s, and his death at the hands of the US would cause a serious uproar in Iraq’s Shia community. I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assasination.
It is comical watching the liberal anti-americans scream. Last month we needed more troops. This month the president should be impeached for sending more troops.
Screaming we didn’t send enough troops at the beginning is laughable. Where were we going to get the troops after Slick gutted the military.
In 1991 we were able to field 575,000 in the middle east (first Gulf war). What was the total U.S. military manpower in 1991? Look it up and compare to what it was in 2001. You’ll find something over 40% less. We are lucky to field what we do. Dumb a** liberals had this country set up for a takeover by some of their friends in the socialist/communist countries. Put the Clintons/Kennedys/Kerry’s on a water board and see who their friends were and are. You’d get a shock.
Josh, you make some good points, as always; it’s always refreshing to get input from one who served (and of course, we all appreciate your service to our country and are glad you made it out safe and sound)…
Really? Honest Injun, I have proceeded on the theory that his presence is an accelerant; there would be a brief-ish surge once he was gone, but that would quiet down.
Was I being too hopeful, then?
I guess that is the million dollar question. Sadr Dead= Martyrdom>?I do not believe the US would have a remote chance of cooperation in operations in Iraq with the levels of animosity that would exist after an assassination.
I should clarify. My main area of operations was mainly Baghdad (Sadr City, actually) and Iskandriyah. Having operated in Sadr’s own enclave I guess it may have been possible that the extreme support for Sadr could have mainly existed in and around the Baghdad area that I operated, but I really don’t believe that is the case.
YA! Back to school tomorrow…
My fear and suspicion is that 20,000 troops is not enough. The biggest mistake of the campaign in Iraq, following the deposing of Saddam’s regime, is the politicization of the military action. IMO, a big contributor to our current position is our willingness to subsume military tactics and strategy to political consideration: we stand at the outside of Sadr city because going in might anger someone, we refuse, initially, to enter any mosques for similar reasons, and on and on. The first objective in any war is to end it as quickly as possible. To do so requires that you convince your enemy that they have lost, whether you do this through direct or indirect strategy depends on the relative strength of your forces. Josh is right about “untying the American force’s hand’s”. I just don’t see that an additional 20,000 troops positions us to accomplish our objectives. That number is a compromise and insufficient.
mark
-I misread the article, I confused the total number of troops currently in Iraq with the Congressional committee’s “Go Big” suggestion.
josh
I hope you don’t think I somehow undervalue human life by tring to put this war in historical perspective. I certainly don’t want to lose 50K like we did in Vietnam, and I’m glad we’ve been able to keep casualties at historical low figures.