Bush's Speech: Great Analysis
NCfan
Posts: 945
This is the analysis of Andrew Sullivan. I agree that Bush has set us up for failure again. Although, I don't put all the blame on him. The American should shoulder some of the blame as well, as our citizens are currently too soft to do what is necessary to win in Iraq.
It would require real sacrifices of men, money and a genuine curb in political egos until the job is done. Bush's strategic view is not lacking, it's his ability to unite people behind his cause that is his true downfall. Our country would rally to a noble cause for a noble leader. But Bush lied to get us into Iraq, so the once noble cause is easily discredited. And by refusing to acknowledging almost any mistake, including the "lie", Bush has shown that he is not a noble leader as well. If only he had an honest advisor and the ability for public speaking. One can only wish...
Andrew Sullivan,
The premise of the speech, and of the strategy, is that there is a national democratic government in Baghdad, defending itself against Jihadist attacks. The task, in the president's mind, is therefore to send more troops to defend such a government. But the reality facing us each day is a starkly different one from the scenario assumed by the president. The government of which Bush speaks, to put it bluntly, does not exist. The reality illumined by the lynching of Saddam is that the Maliki government is a front for Shiite factions and dependent for its future on Shiite death squads. U.S. support for the government is not, therefore, a defense of democracy in a unified country, whatever our intentions. It is putting the lives of American soldiers in defense of the Shiite side in an increasingly brutal civil war.
What we will discover in the next few months, therefore, is simply whether the entire premise of this strategy is actually true. The president is asking us to find this out one more time. He seems to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence on the ground - that the dynamic has changed beyond recognition. His intellectual rubric - democracy versus terror - has not changed to deal with fast-changing events, or to take account of the sectarian dynamic that his appallingly managed occupation has spawned. And so his strategy is no surprise. It would have made sense in 2004, when so many of us were begging for more troops, only to be dismissed as fair-weather warriors, terror-supporters, or lily-livered wimps. We were right. This president was disastrously wrong - and clung to his disproved strategy in the face of overwhelming evidence, supported by the Republican right regardless, until it simply became impossible to sustain the lie any longer.
If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation - a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer - then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose. The only leverage this president really has left is the looming regional war that withdrawal would bring. Yes, if we leave, the civil war will take off. And if we stay, with this level of troops, the civil war will also take off. One way, we get enmeshed in the brutal civil war in the region. One way, we get to face them another day, and perhaps benefit by setting them against each other, and destabilizing Iran. That's the awful choice this president has brought us to. Under these circumstances, I favor withdrawal, while of course, hoping that a miracle could take place. But make no mistake: a miracle is what this president needs. And a miracle is what we will now have to pray for.
He will do what he wants, of course. Even if the bulk of his own party balks, along with the Democrats. Even if the casualties mount, and the civil war intensifies. Even if failure becomes more and more entrenched. The logic of his speech is that we can never let go of this disaster, that it is our fate for the rest of our lives, and that his job is merely to pass it on - deadlier than ever - to whichever unlucky sap gets to inherit his office.
To back this anemic reponse to the escalating civil war requires us to abandon our empirical sense and the lessons of the past four years. To back it requires us to trust this president as a competent, deft and determined leader. Do you? Can you? At this point? After all we have seen?
It would require real sacrifices of men, money and a genuine curb in political egos until the job is done. Bush's strategic view is not lacking, it's his ability to unite people behind his cause that is his true downfall. Our country would rally to a noble cause for a noble leader. But Bush lied to get us into Iraq, so the once noble cause is easily discredited. And by refusing to acknowledging almost any mistake, including the "lie", Bush has shown that he is not a noble leader as well. If only he had an honest advisor and the ability for public speaking. One can only wish...
Andrew Sullivan,
The premise of the speech, and of the strategy, is that there is a national democratic government in Baghdad, defending itself against Jihadist attacks. The task, in the president's mind, is therefore to send more troops to defend such a government. But the reality facing us each day is a starkly different one from the scenario assumed by the president. The government of which Bush speaks, to put it bluntly, does not exist. The reality illumined by the lynching of Saddam is that the Maliki government is a front for Shiite factions and dependent for its future on Shiite death squads. U.S. support for the government is not, therefore, a defense of democracy in a unified country, whatever our intentions. It is putting the lives of American soldiers in defense of the Shiite side in an increasingly brutal civil war.
What we will discover in the next few months, therefore, is simply whether the entire premise of this strategy is actually true. The president is asking us to find this out one more time. He seems to disbelieve the overwhelming evidence on the ground - that the dynamic has changed beyond recognition. His intellectual rubric - democracy versus terror - has not changed to deal with fast-changing events, or to take account of the sectarian dynamic that his appallingly managed occupation has spawned. And so his strategy is no surprise. It would have made sense in 2004, when so many of us were begging for more troops, only to be dismissed as fair-weather warriors, terror-supporters, or lily-livered wimps. We were right. This president was disastrously wrong - and clung to his disproved strategy in the face of overwhelming evidence, supported by the Republican right regardless, until it simply became impossible to sustain the lie any longer.
If the president tonight had outlined a serious attempt to grapple with this new situation - a minimum of 50,000 new troops as a game-changer - then I'd eagerly be supporting him. But he hasn't. 21,500 U.S. troops is once again, I fear, just enough troops to lose. The only leverage this president really has left is the looming regional war that withdrawal would bring. Yes, if we leave, the civil war will take off. And if we stay, with this level of troops, the civil war will also take off. One way, we get enmeshed in the brutal civil war in the region. One way, we get to face them another day, and perhaps benefit by setting them against each other, and destabilizing Iran. That's the awful choice this president has brought us to. Under these circumstances, I favor withdrawal, while of course, hoping that a miracle could take place. But make no mistake: a miracle is what this president needs. And a miracle is what we will now have to pray for.
He will do what he wants, of course. Even if the bulk of his own party balks, along with the Democrats. Even if the casualties mount, and the civil war intensifies. Even if failure becomes more and more entrenched. The logic of his speech is that we can never let go of this disaster, that it is our fate for the rest of our lives, and that his job is merely to pass it on - deadlier than ever - to whichever unlucky sap gets to inherit his office.
To back this anemic reponse to the escalating civil war requires us to abandon our empirical sense and the lessons of the past four years. To back it requires us to trust this president as a competent, deft and determined leader. Do you? Can you? At this point? After all we have seen?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
many have been against this effort from the very beginning...the post mentions that bush lied to get us into this conflict...well, I'm unsure how this falls on the American citizens, perhaps those who still believe in this effort, even after no WMD's were found, even after the reasons for war have changed a dozen times, I say they do shoulder the blame...but not those who have been against this from day one....
after all the time we've spent going at each other's throats... how come now you write something that i agree 100% with? well, i still dont think our presence there was necessary in the first place, but the management of it from day one has ensured that it would not be a success.
we should have simply stayed in afghanistan. iraq wasn't going anywhere, there was no need to rush into a war there.
I agree with you that the American people are not to shoulder some of the blame. Blame lies on this administration for it horrid management of this war from day 1. Blame lies of the militias, insurgents, and jihadist in IraqAlso a lot of the blame lies on the Iraqi government for it's lack-luster attempts to aid the US in controlling corruption and sectarian violence and infiltration of Iraqi security forces.
I look at it as family. If my brother makes a mistake and a bunch of guys are kicking his ass - I'm not going to turn my back on him and say you deserved it. I'm going to jump in there and either win or go down trying, because of the principle of family.
And so it goes with America. Our current leadership got us in a noble game but fumbled the ball. Yes, it was a mistake to go into Iraq for the stated reasons of WMD's. But now that we are there, we have no choice but to do what is necessary for the sake of America, the canary if you will for Democracy on the planet earth. In Vietnam, the stakes weren't as high as we thought they were. History has allowed us to realize this. But, in Iraq with the instability in the world - I truly believe the stakes are as big as everyone thinks they are.
John kerry had absolutely no plan...your too blame for not votign for a sufficent leader in the primaries
this is complete fucking bullshit. you going to try and blame me for this fucking mess because i have NOT supported the mass slaughter of over 100,000 iraqi civilians based on lies and natural resources? then say we are soft?
and what do you think is "necessary" to "win" in iraq
the word "win" is your first mistake. nobody can "win" a war, we all lose, on all sides. the sooner armchair generals figure that shit out we will be much better off as a country, as a planet, and as a species.
intesting take....
for me, if a "brother" was taking shit, pushing a fight (that did not need to be fought), and gets his ass into trouble, that's on "him"...
I guess we disagree on this being a "noble" cause...it was a mistake manufacted by the powers that be...
I sit on the other side of the fence, once we leave, the Iraqi people will work things out on their own...they are going to have to someday...we can't hold their pricks while they pee forever...
I watched the speech last night, and noticed that nothing was said about diplomacy....which is the only true way out of this...the speech was more about "do what I tell you" rather than, "how can we help you"....
by time I had a say in the primaries, kerry was already in...
so quit blaming me...
another classic mistake. everyone is walking around talking about what is best for america... how about what is best for the country we have destroyed? how about the mass deaths we have caused? how about the massive fucking problem we have caused?
how about we worry about what is best for fucking Iraq?
we always talk about the 3000 soldiers that have lost their lives, but no one ever talks about the 100,000+ iraqi's that have been slaughtered?
what to do? hell, i am not sure. but i know escalation is certainly not the answer.
you are like a broken record.
I picked up on that as well. That's a great way to try to open up some sort of diplomatic discussion with these two countries, by threatening them.
A 20,000 troops increase could be used to help provide cover as we flee from that shithole in the cover of night... a 200,000 troop increase would provide the security required to allow the rebuilding effort to take hold.
This is Bush's last chance... and he has played his hand foolishly and made yet, another in a series of extremely poor decisions. If he isn't going to provide the men ad resources to accoplish his dream... then get the hell out of there.
Hail, Hail!!!
It's becoming apperant to me that Bush is staling. He is trying to prevent making the tough decision by instituting this new direction, which looks a lot like the old direvtion with some extra troops, and hoping that it will do untill he is out of office and then it falls on the next administration to figure out how to really solve the problem there.
The next administration will have its hands full... that's for sure. Bush has gotten us into this mess in Iraq, helped to divide America along political lines, alienated our European and Nato Allies, insulted our friends with his tough guy rhetoric, damaged our military's reputation and strenghtened the resolve for religious fanatics to strike us again.
Hands down... the WORST President in the History of America.
Hail, Hail!!!
I can't argue with that assessment.
All Bush had to do was consult his Dad. Senior Bush would have probably told him to gather up a REAL coalition of world nations and highlighted the inclusion of Arab nations to take on this mess. Instead, President Bush asked Jesus. Now, I'm a big fan of Jesus and all... but, sorry... He's the last guy I'm asking for advice when it comes to starting a war on the other side of the planet.
This coalition was a joke. A short term agreement with England and Austrailia and bribes to such powerhouse countries such as Costa Rica, Guana and Tonga who anted up two busboys each... Hell, even our little brother Canada (who goes with us on all of our little adventures) decided to sit this one out... this coalition was a fucking joke. It was America going it alone.
Hail, Hail!!!
I watched his speach intently last night..as I have very strong feelings about this mess..and for once Bush was humble.....he did admit situation was fked up...and he's doing what he thinks is right....not that I think it will work.
Also for the first time he didn't add his religious ramblings to the speach to satisfy the right....he said "Blessed" once when describing the men and women fighting...and didn't say "and may God Bless the US" at the end of the speach....WOW for once as you stated above..I almost felt sorry for the poor fellow and again feel sorry for all those that supported him up now.
I agree that a miracle needs to take place for this Iraq mess to resolve. I think something along the lines of Michael Moore's proposal could be that kind of miracle. That, along with as many able-bodied Americans between the ages of 21-45 volunteering, en masse, so that our forces over there increase by 200,000 or more.
Who could lead such a miracle?
Of course, Americans tend to be too "soft" and satisfied to take this kind of thing on themselves.
And, besides, ultimately, those Iraqi's don't need any Americans around in the first place.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.