Reaction to the Speech

Let me first congratulate Bush on a fairly nice speech. Although naturally all sides will claim this and that, I believe his speech today will, at the very least, be one factor that temporarily recuperates America's will to continue the struggle. The speech was prompted by a string of polls which revealed public perceptions toward the President and the conflict in Iraq had gone somewhat badly recently. Regardless, the President and other White House officials maintained that America would continue the struggle and never relent until the mission in Iraq was accomplished. Pre-speech 'hysteria' (if it can be called that) circled mostly around the adverse poll numbers the Administration has had to suffer through. Perhaps those numbers are deserved; after all, what is the public to make out of an incessant stream of suicide bombs and torn limbs? Iraq is not stable, and we know this because we live in a peaceful environment which doesn't include RPGs and car bombs. As long as Iraq is not stable, this Administration will be punished for it. The President gave the speech at Fort Bragg, North Carolina amidst special operations forces and paratroopers, environs he should've been familiar and comfortable with (military audiences are usually his favorite). Many had expected a quasi-lengthy speech, but Bush kept to tradition and went no longer than 30 minutes. He focused on themes that had been explored before and tried to explain them to the American people in familiar but non-effusive terms. He reiterated the need for the United States to remain in Iraq despite current problems and attempted to reassure the nation that the insurgency would be defeated. He never actually used the word 'insurgency,' instead referring to those men as 'terrorists' (which they are) because it would help form a link between what's occurring in Iraq and the general war on terror. In recent times, the necessity of establishing links between Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime has been a key talking point for this Administration. Precisely why remains a mystery when applying the rules of formal logic, but speculation points to required shifts in statements after years have produced no evidence of the WMDs which the war was largely based on. Independent report after independent report, however, states there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The 9-11 Commission Report explicitly mentioned that there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two men and their respective organizations. Quite mysteriously (or maybe not, depending on one's views), several members of the Administration, most notably Vice President Cheney, have continued to bring up this apocryphal relationship (Cheney in particular has become famous for making statements regarding the conflict that can, at the very least, be termed 'controversial', and at the very most be categorized as embarrassing falsehoods). Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing or little to do with 9-11, Bush invoked that famous event once more in a speech regarding Iraq. Political and casual observers alike have easily noticed that 9-11 has transmogrified into a wild Bucephalus best utilized by whoever controls it best. At the moment, it seems President Bush and the Republicans have done a better job at controlling that political beast. References to 9-11 are rife throughout the current political atmosphere, and why shouldn't they be? They work, much of the time anyway. The President was simply playing upon this well-known fact, even if reality does not reflect his words. Bush also emphasized how Iraq had turned into the main ground for the war on terror, quoting Osama bin Laden, who said (paraphrased), "Iraq is the third world war," to prove his point. Bush seems to be correct here, but we still don't quite know the full implications of this scenario. Bush argued how it was necessary to maintain current efforts in Iraq for the expressed purpose of defeating terrorism, or some elements of global terrorism. Another important topic in the speech involved the training of Iraqi soldiers and police. As of this moment, there are only a handful of Iraqi battalions capable of conducting anti-insurgent operations in coordination with Allied forces; over 100 are in training but not yet ready. Bush praised the work already accomplished and accentuated the need for further expansion of Iraqi military and police forces. One of the particular points he underscored was the collective interest of the global community in an outcome favorable to the current Iraqi government. Bush mentioned the recent donors conference in Belgium (where about 80 nations convened to discuss the reconstruction of Iraq) and comments by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder (made at the White House two days ago) that spoke of the urgency for a victory in Iraq. In another sense, however, I can't help but wonder if some governments which opposed the war do not harbor some intrinsic but mild sentiments of content now that America and Britain are struggling. They wouldn't do this because they are evil or anything, but merely because they were so convinced of the correctness in their position (much like the US was). Geostrategically, American failure in Iraq (and by 'failure' I mean a premature withdrawal that leads to pandemonium within the Iraqi sociopolitical realm and maybe even brings the government down) would not have large consequences in the short term, despite Administration statements to the contrary (those statements are borne by the need to remind people of how fragile the situation is and that, now more than ever, the very solidarity that's lacking is most needed). A huge sub theme regarding this entire debate has concerned the number of troops required to pacify Iraq. Bush averred an already well-known position when he claimed commanders on the ground had not requested more troops. However, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden responded in a post-speech interview that generals in Iraq actually did desire more troops. This was quite simply puzzling and must be ironed out somehow; here we have the President claiming the commanders don't want or need more troops, and then a Senator comes out and says they do. Let me be clear and mention that two positions so diametrically aligned are not inspired by politics alone; one of these two men simply has their facts wrong. The President's position on the issue does appear to be quite plausible; additional troops to Iraq would either not resolve the problem or would be secondary to the bigger goal of more effective intelligence. In confrontations between traditional nation-state armies, large numbers would be quite useful and desirable (the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 is one of the best examples of the decisiveness of numbers), but in an unusual war like this numbers would do little. Just sealing off all of Iraq's borders would require a couple of hundred thousand more troops than present American levels, and we're all aware such numbers are nigh impossible to provide because of other strategic commitments. Bush also vehemently eliminated the possibility for the establishment of a timetable, an aspect to the war which he views as dangerous and ill-advised. Bush proclaimed that a timetable would only give incentive to the terrorists since they need not do more than simply wait for the Americans to jettison themselves out of there and then attack the supposedly weak government. He believes any facet of American withdrawal should be based on events on the ground and not on what he views as strict deadlines. His critics charge that a timetable would actually prove useful in intimidating the terrorists because it would provide an outline for things to happen in Iraq which those very same terrorists have been fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be many historical precedents for such a move; counter-insurgency operations have relied virtually strictly on completion of operations and frankly the reasons being given for a timetable are a bit laughable and overly hopeful. It is far more likely that, as Bush has mentioned, entrenching deadlines into the mission will only encourage the terrorists, not frighten them. Furthermore, in many ways this mission has had PLENTY of deadlines, from the handover to the Iraqis in June last year, to the elections in January, and to the Constitution to be completed in just a few months. If that's not a timetable for accomplishing certain tasks, what is? I'm inclined to believe this timetable business has more to do with bringing the troops back home then reconstructing Iraq. That was an overview of the main points Bush discussed; let's now focus on how effective this speech was and any possible political effects it may have.

As I said earlier, I congratulate Bush on a fairly nice speech. He did what he had to do without embellishing too much, trying to portray a realistic picture of the situation that differed somewhat sharply with previous addresses. Normal Bush speeches on the topic include vast arrays of comments on, essentially, how well we're doing in Iraq. This one was more cautious because it had to be; Bush was no longer speaking to groups strongly favoring him (the military personnel at the fort were not the only recipients of his address) but rather to a nation that has grown wearier of a conflict with 15,000 American casualties and seemingly no end in sight. He also did what he's very good at doing: utilizing 9-11 to explain the world's problems. Such moves by the President may be politically deceptive, but fortunately for him the public doesn't notice much that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11 (or maybe they don't care, which would be even worse) or that whenever something seems to go wrong they are reminded of 9-11 for the explicit purpose of warming their hears to certain ventures. The speech was not particularly effusive, and I'm not certain as to whether that's bad or good. A passionate speech may have riled up several skeptical segments of the populace or it could've simply earned an unending chain of criticism for feigned care and attempts at scoring politically. He made a few verbal gaffes but those can be excused I suppose; we all know Bush is not a very good speaker. From Bush's perspective, one of the most important things this speech can accomplish is turn the tide of negative public opinion. A poll of 300 people was taken before and after the speech to have an early window in what the public may be thinking (50% of those individuals identified themselves as Republicans and the other 50 were virtually split in half as Democrats and Independents). After the speech, 46% of those polled felt that the President did a great job in warming the public to the need to continue the fight. While this number may be positive in light of other numbers regarding Iraq (39% supporting the war according to a recent poll), it is lower when compared to the favorability ratings Bush received after other high-profile speeches. What does this mean? We don't really know yet; this poll involved only 300 people and hence cannot be that conclusive about the general population (the reason why pollsters normally have more than 1,000 people is to reduce the margin of error), but what struck me as interesting was the low value of the numbers despite the group having more Republicans than either Democrats or Independents. Despite that, more conclusive polls will have to be performed to draw a clear picture of what the American public thought of the speech. Noted political analyst, Harvard professor, and former White House Advisor David Gergen mentioned that the speech could buy Bush a certain time of relief but that afterwards results on the ground would be needed to convince the public to remain in Iraq. This is a reasonable view and I happen to share certain aspects of it. However, although I agree that America will give Bush more time, it won't be because of the speech at all, but rather because of the urgency of the mission. In the grand scheme of things, the speech will not be that effective in either marshalling support for the war or weakening it; that will simply depend on what occurs in Iraq. Americans will realize the need to remain in Iraq for a while longer because they believe it's a necessity or a sacrifice which must be undertaken for the good of the country. How long such a stance persists will have to be seen, but this too depends on events on the ground. I would have to say Bush needs to make these sorts of addresses a tradition. The past six months have not gone well for him because, according to some, he has spent too much time on Social Security and domestic issues and not enough on Iraq. Analysts say this course has cost him dearly in the polls with Iraq and even with Social Security, gaging by the number of people who aren't enthusiastic with his personal accounts plan. Bush needs to resume and continue this dialogue if he is to have a reasonable chance of keeping his numbers in the polls up. Unfortunately for him, he's not too keen on giving speeches (Bush's Administration has been notoriously viewed as secretive, and the Commander in Chief himself is partly responsible for that), but that's going to have to change. More televised speeches on the issue can only help him by showing the American people that he's investing time, blood, and sweat. Bush realizes this is a war America must win. He has not shown that, however. Yesterday was (hopefully) a starting step.