Let me follow my pre-speech comments with some post-speech thoughts as well, with more no doubt to come on the local media & blog scene on the topic.
On the whole, a good speech, but not a great one. It wasn't outstanding in terms of delivery, but given the difficult task at hand President Bush constructively presented his changes in policy, admission of past mistakes, and honesty about the road ahead.
First, Bush seemed to address the concerns those inclined to support the war effort have expressed in recent months. He laid out a clear vision for what the additional troops are going to do, how they are going to do it, and in what way their work will occur in conjunction with Iraqi security efforts. In addition, he clearly enunciated that such efforts to secure Baghdad would now provide necessary troop levels for U.S. and Iraqi forces to properly "hold" areas after they have been cleared, without the political interference from the Iraqi government that had at times occurred. At a tactical level, this also supports the enhanced reconstruction Bush announced. At a strategic level, it provides the "breathing space" necessary for the Iraqi government to make the political progress all sides of the debate want to see. Most importantly, he spelled out clear benchmarks - mostly related to that political progress - the Iraqi government must meet to maintain our support.
It's tougher to say where the speech leaves the country. Any consumer of local liberal blogs and related comments on the issue will find anti-war advocates railing that no one supports Bush anymore, crushing majorities of the country just want us out of Iraq now, the 2006 elections were all about bringing the troops home ASAP. Regrettably for them, the public mood isn't that clear.
A summary of recent Iraq-related polling at pollster.com shows some divergent views on the matter, especially when respondents are presented with hypothetical multiple-choice options. A CBS poll, however, which asked the most relevant, direct question about the President's proposal (an increase in troop strength to secure Baghdad) found 45% in favor, 48% opposed. The same poll also found 43% in favor of continuing to the fight the war with a new strategy, while 52% percent wanted the United States to "start ending its involvement in Iraq" (a rather vague statement that would seemingly mean different things to different people). Perhaps upcoming polls will show a stark difference from CBS' findings, but it doesn't seem the mood of the American people is as clear as the most fervent anti-war voices think.
The LA Times explored the issue of the public mood as well today, as part of a look at the conflicted state of the Democratic party on the issue (sound familiar?):
Some moderate Democrats worry that the pressure being applied by the antiwar left is misguided, arguing that voters want a change of course in Iraq but not a rapid withdrawal."Conventional wisdom says that presidential candidates who want to be responsible on this are going to hurt themselves with the angry, impassioned activist left," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank. "But the activist left is out of sync with the American public. Americans don't want to concede this is a total debacle."
Such tension has obviously been evident with prominent local Democrats as well. Adam Smith has publicly vacillated on the topic, while the Seattle Times and the P-I have both reported on divisions within the state's Congressional Democrats on funding the "surge."
It seems unlikely Democrats will actually limit funding to support the troops after reading that local coverage and other national commentary. Such a move will no doubt irritate anti-war liberals, already planning a large, public campaign against Bush's policy.
Instead Democratic leaders seem intent on foisting "symbolic votes" to apply political pressure on Bush and those members of Congress willing to support him. Of course, such votes also have the potential effect of telling the troops whose efforts in the field Democrats continue to fund: "we think what you're doing isn't worthwhile." Not a strategy I would want to pursue if I was a Democrat.
At the same time, Democrats seem set to emphasize a collection of platitudes which ironically describe the policies that didn't work in 2006. This New York Times article (now largely hiding behind their "give me money" firewall) details how the failure occurred, and allows the observant reader to see how the tactics of turning hot spots over to Iraqis and pressuring for political settlements didn't work, primarily because the security situation in Baghdad got worse, not better. Yet, the continuation of these very tactics is what one essentially hears Democrats calling for now. Sen. Dick Durbin's official Democratic response to the President called on Iraqis to "disband the militias and death squads." Adam Smith's guest post at Horse's Ass said, "We need to see from the Administration a real commitment to a broader diplomatic and political effort if we are to have any sense of minimal stability in Iraq."
Does Durbin think all the Iraqi government has to do is say to the militias, "go away now, please," and then it's problem solved? Does Smith think all the efforts at prodding the Iraqis to reach political agreements the past year were just games of patty-cake that will get more serious if we tell the Iraqi government to handle the security situation in Baghdad on its own, after months of them being unable to maintain security in the neighborhoods we had previously cleared for them?
This game of shell votes and fluffy statements the Democrats are playing avoids the real debate. Rich Lowry identified the problem clearly in a recent column:
It once was a staple of Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's management of the Iraq war that it hadn't dedicated enough troops to stabilize the country. John Kerry: "We don't have enough troops (there)." Joe Biden: "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency." That was before Bush seemed on the verge of actually proposing more troops. Now Democrats support more troops -- but only for Afghanistan.President Bush finally has taken to heart the old slogan that war is too important to be left to the generals. He has fired his generals responsible for the failing strategy in Iraq, and hired one -- David Petraeus -- who believes in the new strategy of adding more troops to clear and hold neighborhoods in Baghdad. He thus has stripped away any of the political insulation between him and the management of war that he had maintained by deferring to his generals. He is taking full ownership of the war just as it seems barely salvageable, an act of political courage commensurate with the geopolitical stakes in Iraq.
The Democrats aren't being as straightforward, which is why it's possible to feel a twinge of sympathy for antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan. It must be infuriating to her to know that most Democrats believe the same thing she does about the futility of the war, but won't follow through on it. Nancy Pelosi is rumbling about denying funding for a surge of 20,000 additional troops, but supports continuing funding for the 140,000 troops already there. If the war is lost, however, it is no better to have 140,000 troops stuck in theater than 160,000.
Eventually, the logic of their unspoken convictions will catch up to the Democrats, and Sheehan's cry to bring the troops home now will become their own. And the true debate will be joined.
Observers of the liberal, anti-war base of the Democratic party will tell you that's what those folks actually believe, the war is indeed lost. If that's the Democrats' position, then fine, say it, and let's have an honest debate. If it's not, let's have the Democratic majorities in Congress put forward a plan that also changes course from the losing tactics of 2006 and we'll have a serious discussion.
George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al. will bear the legacy of their decisions in Iraq. Bush in particular depends on this last-chance policy to stabilize Iraq and validate the gamble of the 2003 invasion. If not, his long-term reputation will no doubt suffer even worse than his short-term struggles, and the threat of an Iraq drag on Republican candidates for the next several years is quite real. Indeed, there are a modest number of Congressional Republican who oppose the surge. But minorities within minorities aren't responsible for legislating; majorities are.
What will the legacy be of the Democrats who control Congress as the debate about the policy of United States in Iraq reaches its zenith? Will they establish themselves as credible on national security issues after decades of playing second fiddle in the eyes of American voters? Bush has presented the change in course the country called for, and will pay a brutal price if it doesn't succeed. What will Democrats do with the responsibility of Congressional control?
****
UPDATE I: I wondered about one line of Bush's speech, and whether it would have the desired impact: "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship." Those aware of their history will recognize the reference to the formal peace signed between Japan and the United States on the deck of the battleship Missouri to conclude World War II. Bush's point was the war against radical Islam will never conclude with a tidy peace treaty, in an easy-to-photograph setting.
However, Eli Sanders at the Slog seems to have missed the point in a generally grumpy post about Bush's speech. He either doesn't understand the historical reference, or he's errant in an attempt to be snarky about Bush's visit to the Lincoln (an aircraft carrier, not a battleship, Eli) to celebrate the outstanding success of the United States Armed Forces during the conventional warfare phase of the Iraq conflict. The event on the Lincoln bears little if any resemblance to the surrender ceremony on the Missouri. I realize some folks don't know their history, and/or have trouble identifying major pieces of military hardware, but Sanders' error seems a bit much.
UPDATE II: There are some early positive signs this new policy has the resolve it needs to have a true chance at success. Bush reportedly told Members of Congress, "'I said to Maliki this has to work or you're out.'" Meanwhile, Maliki delivered similar such statements to al-Sadr, disarm or be destroyed. Both leaders need follow through now.
UPDATE III: Jonah Goldberg's syndicated column, which usually runs in the Seattle Times on Fridays, touches on some themes from the original post here:
With last night's speech, President Bush made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than winning it. He may be deluding himself, and his plan may not work, but he at least has done the nation the courtesy of saying what his position is, despite an antagonistic political establishment and a hostile public. What is maddening is that the Democratic leadership cannot, or will not, clearly tell the American people whether they are the party of "end it" or "win it."Posted by Eric Earling at January 10, 2007 11:54 PM | Email This...
Here we have a president forthrightly trying to win a war, and the opposition -- which not long ago was in favor of increasing troops, when Bush was against that -- won't say what it wants. This is flatly immoral. If you believe the war can't be won and there's nothing to be gained by staying, then, to paraphrase Sen. John Kerry, you're asking more men to die for a mistake. You should demand withdrawal. But that might cost votes, so the Dems don't.
Time and time again, we discover that the Iraqi forces are failing to stand up to the challenge. Many in the Administration believe this is because of a lack of equipment, training, and compensation. But they never listen to those who know the reality in Iraq: There are NO unified Iraqi forces in Iraq. They are splintered along sectarian lines. Iraqi forces cannot take over from the U.S. military because they are increasingly becoming part of the problem.
Bush wants to send a surge of U.S. troops to stabilize Baghdad. Will it work? Yes, it probably will. But what happens after Baghdad is stabilized? Will the Iraqi forces be able to take over and maintain that stability? Most foreign policy or Arab policy observers, with the exception of neocons like Kristol and Kagan believe that given the sectarian reality in Iraq, this strategy is ultimately doomed to failure. There will never be a time when American forces can leave the job of security up to the Iraqi forces -- not unless some huge political wave washes over centuries-old divisions along ethnic and sectarian lines and instills a sense of nationalism that is all but gone now.
If the Democrats did admit their true assessments about whether the war is lost, perhaps Lowry would be right on another note. Perhaps there would be a real debate, based upon facts and reality, rather than this political posturing and hand-wringing by the Democrats when faced with a failing policy in Iraq.
Sadly, Bush's speech did not indicate a change in course -- only more of the same: demands upon a splintered Iraqi government that either is unable to manage the accomplishment of such benchmarks or is ultimately unwilling to. What's more, most Americans are more aware of the reality in Iraq: a reality that is still at odds with some of the rhetoric the President used tonight.
By many accounts, this is Bush's last chance to salvage a bit of credibility. Here's hoping he can, but I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: km on January 11, 2007 12:06 AMThe Iraq war is slowly transforming into the 21st century's Vietnam. President Bush has presided over a catastrophe. The price of the catastrophe? $400 billion, 3018 dead soldiers and at least 150,000 dead civilians.
President Bush has murdered more civilians than Osama Bin Laden. Osama had only 3,000 corpses to his name, the President's death toll is quickly rising on the way to 200,000.
The Democrats must put a stop to the Iraq war. The President should not have the luxury of allowing the next president to inherit the mess and attempt to clean it up. Congress should force President Bush to leave Iraq, concede defeat, and apologize to the families of the 3,000 soldiers who died in a futile, evil cause.
Posted by: David Mathews on January 11, 2007 04:20 AMYour update bears repeating by Bush more than once every three years. The War on Terrorism and the radical Islamofascists will not be won quickly, but only after years of vigilance and action.
Bush was right in '01 and is right today.
Posted by: swatter on January 11, 2007 07:08 AMThe war was a failure before it even began. It was stupid to do it then and it is stupid to do it now. It would be nice if we could get out of this mess and get on with actually dealing with terrorists, not insurgents and civil wars.
Lincoln was fortunate not to have to deal with todays critics.
Do you know how many generals Lincoln went through before realizing victory over the South???
Even though it was a bloody, civil war did Lincoln do the right thing? or should he have surrendered early?
Yet you cite pollster dot com that shows:
Gallup; 54% Withdraw
CBS; 59% either remove all or decrease.
Rasmussen; 56% Reduce
CBS II; 48% Oppose the new plan.
And etc...
I don't see one poll that would cause me to question the mood of Americans. How is the mood "clear?" Do you have any empirical evidence that might indicate that the mood of the American people isn't in favor of just getting out of Iraq? Because everything you showed here supports that.
I am not going to go into why Bush's speech last night troubled me (as a Republican), because I already did that on NWRepublican.
I do however want to suggest that we on the right need to be honest about the situation in Iraq, this nation and political realities. Just because the left wing blogs hate America, does not mean they are wrong in their assessment of the national mood. After all even a stopped clock is right twice.
You also don't have to hate America to be in favor of a plan to bring troops home from Iraq.
yip yip
Posted by: Coyote on January 11, 2007 08:36 AMI don't see where Bush's speech last night or supporters of the proposed policy are being anything other than honest about the situation as you indicate they are not. There is clear admission that things have not gone well as in past months, the new policy is far from a sure thing, and if it fails there will be painful consequences.
People obviously have the right to argue for withdrawal now, and good people can disagree about such things. But if we governed based on the thoughts of modest majorities of the American people on difficult issues, as you seem to suggest, rather than having elected leaders make tough decisions we'd never get anything done in this country and our government would end up making a lot of bad decisions. That's part of the strength of a republic over government by plebiscite.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 11, 2007 08:58 AMIn this case every poll shows that a majority of Americans want the troops home. Please folks don't jump to the conclusion that I am arguing that foreign policy should be based on the whims of polls. That is a different debate entirely.
My point is that, I believe and that every poll indicates that, on this point the left wing bloggers are right. That is that Americans want to end the war and come home.
If one is going to argue their support for the war, the surge, the new strategy or what-have-you, then you must start from a foundation of reality. That foundation is that Americans have turned against the war and want it to end.
Unless you start from that reality and base further arguments on that reality, you run the risk of all the arguments based on the false reality being, well, false. Thus turning off even more fence sitting Americans.
Eric, I am NOT suggesting that we are governed solely on the basis of modest majorities. Although you'd best be carefull in making that statement because you leave yourself open to the leftwingers who could easily challenge you on the "modest majority" of Americans who voted for GWB both times and as such has thus "governed" us.
So let's debate with an eye on reality. AND let's not assume the other is making an argument he is in fact NOT making.
OK?
Posted by: Coyote on January 11, 2007 09:24 AMMcCain and Giuliani were particularly prominent on TV last night, strongly supporting the President. Whatever their weaknesses on other issues, and whatever the pros and cons of their candidacies, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney deserve credit for taking this supportive stand.
On the other hand, it was disappointing to see Sam Brownback (*) join Chuck Hagel, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe as Republicans critical of the President's Iraq policy. Based on some of Brownback's recent foreign policy statements, I was not surprised, but I am disappointed. Whatever his strengths on other issues, and whatever the pros and cons of his candidacy, Brownback deserves criticism and will run into difficulties with foreign policy conservatives.
(*) source: http://www2.ljworld.com/blogs/kansas_congress/2007/jan/11/surge/
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 11, 2007 12:27 PMDoes that mean then that the war has been "won"?
Regardless, what course do we then take in Iraq?
I need honest answers..
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on January 11, 2007 12:39 PMEric says,
"He laid out a clear vision for what the additional troops are going to do..."
More like his own personal delusions.
"now provide necessary troop levels for U.S. and Iraqi forces to properly "hold" areas after they have been cleared"
Nobody believes this. He fudged the issue of who exactly is supposed to "hold" Baghdad, but it's pretty clear that it will have to be the Iraqis, not US troops who don't want to man the necessary checkpoints and get blown up. The Iraqis "forces" don't have the numbers, training, or unity to "hold" Baghdad.
"Most importantly, he spelled out clear benchmarks - mostly related to that political progress - the Iraqi government must meet to maintain our support."
He's set benchmarks before, but without any consequences if they were not met. Same thing here, no punishments for failure. His main goal is political reconciliation between the Sunni's and Shia. A pipe dream unless we side with the Sunni's and press the Shia majority which we won't do. The problem is that none of the Shia want to give up any of their (elected) power to the Sunni's. The only Shia politician who wanted to ally with the Sunni's was Sadr, the "evil" militia leader we want to kill.
The Washington Post has it right:
"Military experts last night wondered, as one said, how a "thin green line" of 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad could affect the security situation in a city where many of the 5 million residents are hostile to the U.S. presence. "Too little, too late -- way too late," said retired Col. Jerry Durrant, who has worked as a trainer of Iraqi forces.
"The 'surge' is actually quite small," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich.... "In effect, Bush is counting on the Iraqis to pull our bacon out of the fire," Bacevich said, adding that there is no evidence that the Iraqi military and government are capable of doing so."
"An Army officer who recently commanded a battalion in Baghdad predicted last night that the plan would fail because Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his government "will do things to maintain protection" of Sadr's forces. He also dismissed as "happy talk" the president's notion that the predominantly Shiite Iraqi army and police could reassure pro-insurgent Sunni neighborhoods by conducting foot patrols through them."
Eric says
"Bush has presented the change in course the country called for, and will pay a brutal price if it doesn't succeed. What will Democrats do with the responsibility of Congressional control?"
As I said there has been no change in course. Just a little more of the same gruel.
What can the Democrats do? Good question. Not much to affect the reality on the ground, unless they want to provoke a constitutional crisis, and challenge the president's commander in chief auhority in some fashion. Other than that, their main job should be to make sure those who bear the responsibility for these failed policies also bear the historical blame and guilt.
When you run the numbers on the surge it is pretty small considering the various theaters they are to be distributed to.
What would it look like? Something like this?
Western Iraq - 5,000
Iranian border - 5,000
Baghdad - 5,000
Syrian Border - 5,000
Divide those numbers by two in order to have coverage 24 hours. That could give you, as far as real boots on the ground, in Baghdad a total surge of 2,500 troops.
I think I heard last night that the city of New York has a total of 40,000 cops.
Unless my math and distribution are wrong, and they may very well be, you are looking at a relatively small real increase on the streets.
Posted by: Coyote on January 11, 2007 01:48 PMIt is high time that we had a discussion about how the left is trying to criminalize policy they disagree with. It is not just enough to have a difference of opinion on something... Noooo... The left has to make it criminal behavior to disagree.
I never liked the Iraqi war. Once we went in I was a full supporter because we were there. The administration really really screwed it up (ok, I know I'll get flamed for saying that...). To the point that, personally, I don't think it is salvagable. Does that make them "guilty" of anything? No... It makes a disagreement of policy.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans can disagree and debate and Democrats need to throw you in jail if you disagree. Weak.
I have in my pocket this sheet of paper....
Posted by: Coyote on January 11, 2007 01:57 PMI stop with the "guilt card" if you'll stop with the "America hating left" card.
Although how you get from "blame and guilt" to wanting to "criminalize" anything I'm not sure.
This was a Republican war. They started it and they ran it all the way..into the ground. It was a colossal misjudgment. They deserve the "blame".
I'll say it again. For Bush's policy to have succceeded he needed to have send in far more troops. He never did. He's not doing so now. He tried to get by without any sacrifice, probably because he wanted to preserve his precious tax cuts.
Posted by: chew2 on January 11, 2007 05:45 PMHowever...The mainstream media continues to do a great disservice to our troops by slanting their coverage toward the negative and ignoring positive progress in Iraq, mainly because they do not want to see Bush succeed. They need to wise up, grow up and be responsible - which is probably asking too much.
Those who oppose Bush need to look at the big picture, stop emoting and take a deep breath and reflect on how it might affect them if we cut and run and it will. This is not the same as Vietnam - where the media's heads swelled because they believed they triumphed. Instead there will be retribution on us by insurgents and other Islamofascists. Does the MSM care ? Not by their actions. This is not a simplistic black and white situation, there are a number of shades of grey. The anti- war crowd needs to stop their lame blathering about the past- what's done is done !
Posted by: KS on January 11, 2007 07:32 PMEven the conservatives are against the "surge".
"More interestingly, the move turns out to be pretty welcome among Brownback's desired base of social conservatives. While 52 percent of Republicans support the surge according to a just-released AP/Ipsos poll, some 60 percent of white evangelicals oppose it, as do 56 percent of self-described conservatives."
KS
"Instead there will be retribution on us by insurgents and other Islamofascists."
How does our presence in Iraq, whether we win or lose, prevent Al Qaeda from attacking the US? They are based primarily in Afghanistan, Pakistan and all over the world. They have always been free to come after us, except to the extent we have pursued and harassed them in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
All we have done by destroying Iraq is to give Al Qaeda another country to infiltrate and more targets to attack.
Because we are fighting them over there in Iraq. No, Al-Qaeda are based at least as much in Iran as Pakistan - how do you know that they are not ? Besides, there is also Hezbollah who qualify as Islamofascists. You don't think that pulling out of Iraq and surrendering to the insurgents won't embolden terrorists from that region ? I'll bet you that you are DEAD WRONG ! Keep your eye on Iran... Face it, there is no easy answer !
Posted by: KS on January 11, 2007 10:04 PMBy reading your response to me it seems you lean more heavily to the word "blame." Which, IMHO, is an honest argument.
I might argue that this is not a "Republican" war. The Democrats were all lined up (barring a very small handful) and ready to go as well.
No this was an American war that was prosecuted disasterously by a Republican president. There is where the blame lies and I don't say that with bitter hatred for GWB. It is just a sorrowful fact.
I have a feeling that Brownback and Hagel are going to look like geniuses when all is said and done and that McCain's and Guliani's positions are going to end their chances at becoming president.
They are on the wrong side of American opinion on this.
Posted by: Coyote on January 12, 2007 06:27 AM"Because we are fighting them over there in Iraq. No, Al-Qaeda are based at least as much in Iran as Pakistan - how do you know that they are not ?"
You are ignorant. At most 10% of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are Al Qaeda affiliated, the rest are indigenous Iraqi's who are fighting a foreign occupier as would any U.S. patriot if we were occuppied. Iran is no base for Al Qaeda. Stop drinking the paranoid Bush koolaid propaganda. Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group which hates the Shia and has murdered and attacked them in Iraq. The Shia in Iran are Al Qaeda's enemy.
In any case, nothing we are doing in Iraq prevents Al Qaeda, whether they are based in Iran or elsewhere, from striking the U.S. or it's allies in the West.
And what's with Hezbollah? They are no threat to attack the U.S. unless we invade Lebanon again.
If we withdraw from Iraq, a lot less people will hate us and fight us. Sure it will be a propaganda victory for a few terrorists. But so what? They already are emboldened to attack us.
Face it, we will be withdrawing from Iraq sooner than later. It's time to plan how we are going to do it.
Posted by: chew2 on January 12, 2007 09:29 AM"You are ignorant. At most 10% of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are Al Qaeda affiliated, the rest are indigenous Iraqi's who are fighting a foreign occupier as would any U.S. patriot if we were occuppied. Iran is no base for Al Qaeda. Stop drinking the paranoid Bush koolaid propaganda. Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group which hates the Shia and has murdered and attacked them in Iraq. The Shia in Iran are Al Qaeda's enemy."
What the hell difference does all of that make ? they are all enemies of ours and believe in radical Islam. Show me some proof that Iran does not harbor Islamofascists, be it Al-Qaeda, Hamas or other terrorist groups - instead of empty rhetoric. You are grasping at straws if you think I drink the Bush kool aid - my previous comments contradict that. Stop drinking the Cindy Sheehan kool aid yourself and being a typical leftist reactionary.
Posted by: KS on January 12, 2007 11:00 AMIf you really believe we have to stay in Iraq to fight the worldwide "Islamofacist conspiracy", then why don't you get on Bush's butt to send far more troops than he is proposing. Otherwise you are just being a "chicken little" and a free lunch no sacrifice one at that.
Posted by: chew2 on January 12, 2007 12:07 PMhttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/11/85608.shtml
Posted by: KS on January 12, 2007 01:13 PM