 |
January 11, 2007Bush Speech (VI)Bush, concluding his speech: "We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night." Well, that about sums it up. Bush has chosen (surprise!) more faith-based adventurism. Sorry, but count me out of this Hail Mary. As someone who was clamoring for troop increases through '04 and '05, the irony is that now I can only say: too little, too late--certainly without being accompanied by a serious attempt at diplomatic crisis management through the region. So I cannot support this "surge", because I don't believe it will comprehensively move us closer to our strategic objectives (even if we eke out some temporary improvements in the security situation in Baghdad and Anbar, as I believe they will prove ultimately fleeting and unconvincing). We'll simply be spilling more American blood on a plan that is transparently aspirational more than strategically sound. And I must also say that the President's rhetoric regarding Iran and Syria was very irresponsible tonight, even dangerous. More on that in coming days. MORE: Gordon, writing in the NYT, today: Everybody raises a question about the intentions and capability of this government,” a senior American official said, referring to the Iraqi government. “Is this a government that really is a unity government or is it in fact pursuing, either explicitly or implicitly, a Shia hegemony agenda?” Is this not meant as a rhetorical Q?
Comments
Staying the course hasn't gone away, at least from the standpoint of rhetoric. President Bush repeated tonight all the familiar lines about how central Iraq was to the war on terror, what a great achievement the 2005 elections were, and how disastrous failure in Iraq would be. There was the obligatory 9/11 reference. There was no mention of Afghanistan, where 20,000 troops might conceivably be better used than they can be in Baghdad. There were familiar references to what we aim to do and the Iraqi prime minister intends to do, and the oft-heard distinction drawn between extremist and moderate Iraqis. Even the conditional line, devoid of specifics, about mistakes having been made ("if mistakes were made, the responsibility rests with me") was recycled. President Bush delivers a prepared text well. He always has. But in this case it may have something to do with how often he has already repeated much of the rhetoric used tonight. Does this mean his "new direction" can't work? Of course not. It could work if we get very lucky. It might not even get to a trial if an emergency pops up somewhere in the world and the troops now slated for Iraq are needed elsewhere. Or, we could get very unlucky and have an emergency develop after the reinforcements for Iraq are fully deployed and engaged, thereby presenting an opportunity to "fail" in two places at once. I generally find President Bush's public statements dispiriting. Even when I agree with what he is saying I find myself cringing at how he says it. Tonight he made a speech billed as an announcement of a new strategy in Iraq, and packed it with the same language used earlier to support previous stategies in Iraq. He displayed the same strategic sense possessed by any one of thousands of deer that, as I write this, are crossing roads throughout the state of Wisconsin. They will do what they will do, headlights or no headlights, and so will he. Posted by: Zathras at January 11, 2007 04:53 AM | Permalink to this comment
Am I wrong, or did Bush say that an "Islamic empire" will arise if the Iraq adventure fails? I'm no Arab history scholar, but regional unity isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Southwest Asia. Posted by: sglover at January 11, 2007 06:08 AM | Permalink to this comment
I'm likely far to the left of the general audience here but I'm so distraught by Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq I'm trying to cast a wider opinion net to see if anyone--ANYONE--thinks this plan is a good idea. Kagan, Keane, Lieberman & McCain aren't useful. They're ideologues or running for something or ideologues running for something. I agree that the operation in Afghanistan (the war I supported and which didn't cast me as a terrorist sympathizer) is a place where increased troop involvement could make a difference. Too bad, I guess. The NPR story this morning about the high numbers of Afghan women commiting suicide only makes it more nauseating that we're now pulling our forces out of there to help "surge" Baghdad. But Bush's plan is worse than that. What Iraq is our President referring to? While the idea of smashing the militias is lovely in theory, who is going to actually take on Al Sadr and his notorious slum? It certainly won't be the Shia led government and their troops. Meanwhile, the Sunni populace consistently fraks our plans in various provinces with impunity. I want to know: what is this escalation actually going to "win" our American forces? I suppose the point is moot since my government has already begun moving almost 1000 troops from the 82nd Airborne into Baghdad. We're going to get escalation whether we want it or not. It was amusing to hear David Brooks trying to smear anyone antiwar with the Iraq feces this evening on The NewHour, claiming that the Democrats owe America a plan for "fixing" the Iraq problem. Could someone here explain to me how, constitutionally, the Democrats could possibly rein in Bush's grand war plans besides using the power of the purse? Ok, I will admit that I knew Bush's delivery wasn't going to be inspiring. I knew that his coninuation of a failed plan--Now With More Troops!--wasn't going to assuage my fears about the clusterf*ck that is America's involvement in Iraq. I didn't know that he'd drag Iran and Syria into the mix--one can only suppose for sh*ts and giggles--since there's no army left to fight them. (I suspect he mentioned those countries just to change the subject.) However, I had no idea that I'd be so devastated, yet again, by the sheer incompetence of this administration. You can put lipstick on a pig and call her a supermodel but eventually everyone realizes it's just a pig with sexy lips. Posted by: Adso at January 11, 2007 07:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
I am not altogether sure, why an aggressive diplomatic offensive, would necessarily have a positive results in terms of military operations on the ground in Iraq? At this stage of the game, only a full-scale, escalation of upwards of say 100,000-200,000 troops would be able, after say a year or two to turn the tide. And, no one in this country has the stomach to contemplate, much less seriously argue for such a course. Not even Robert Kagan. The only positive point for 'diplomatic crisis management', would be to negotiate a phase-down or better yet withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. While this course may seem 'defeatist', in the absence of a more convincing and 'realisitic' alternative, I am hard put to take seriously another course of action. With the President's speech being just evidence that he envisages trying to muddle through until 20 January 2009. And, passing off the whole Iraq debacle to his successor, whoever he may be... Posted by: Charles Coutinho, PH. D. at January 11, 2007 07:47 AM | Permalink to this comment
I was just thinking the same thing. Too little, too late. This might have worked if this was done years ago with a lot more troops (and maybe even with the Iraqi army if they weren't disbanded). But w has been ignoring reality for too long, and this Pandora's box has been open for too long for this to work. Posted by: Brian at January 11, 2007 09:11 AM | Permalink to this comment
I'm a bit surprised that the Republicans aren't somehow getting their act together. Could someone explain this to me? From the viewpoint of a cynical foreign observer, I can understand what the Democrats will be doing: They will voice objection, and they will make sure to point out that this latest escalation/surge is indeed against the explicit recommendations and advice of the joint chiefs. Which makes this Bush's war, and the war of anybody who supports it. But unless a miracle happens, it will still be Bush's/McCain's war at the next presidential elections, and a festering Iraq should kill _any_ GOP candidate there is, shouldn't it? Are they REALLY thinking that by the grace of god Iraq will turn around by then? Can you REALLY be so naive? Okay, there's the lunatics like Ledeen, who are having an orgasm parsing Bush's speech, speculating that this was actually a declaration of war against Syria and Iran. But shouldn't the moderate Republicans start to panic now?? What is it that I overlook? That Bush is trying to run out the clock is understandable to me. That's just the irresponsible and selfish way the "decider" has operated all the time, and he obviously doesn't want to be the one who has to admit failure. But why don't the Republicans intervene?? I'd be grateful for any explanation... Posted by: Mentar at January 11, 2007 09:33 AM | Permalink to this comment
does it not seem so entirely flawed and flimsy as a plan that one is tempted to believe it is designed to fail? Do not the logical inconsistencies of it force one to that conclusion? Is it not just one giant game of chicken designed to appease the 'author of liberty' and conservative bravado at the expense of those godless, simpering Democrats and those incompetent, right-god-wrong-religion Iraqis? Isn't Bush saying: stop me now or I'm gonna drive this car right over
What else can Bush do? Faced with three choices: a) withdraw forces; b) keep the same levels, and c) add forces, the last option is the only one that maintains the illusion that he is somehow in control of the situation. The only thin left is the Cambodia option, widening the war to include Syria and/or Iran. What's this nonsense about 'advanced weaponry', btw? Posted by: Odradek at January 11, 2007 01:14 PM | Permalink to this comment
Look at it this way. Sometime between 2008 and 2012 the USA is likely to be officially bankrupt. A soft, second-tier currency. A big oil shortage. Lots of unemployment. Maybe a military defeat. Utterly unable to shore up israel. Trouble paying the troops, soft money that won't spend on shore leave or R&R except at home. Troop withdrawals from lots of foreign bases? Can't afford to keep them there, but it could take decades to get them set up again if we leave.... An unexpectedly quick social security failure. Medicare and medicaid failure. Serious talk of secession in idaho, mississippi, etc. Does the GOP want to have a republican president in office facing the problems of 2008-2012? Better to lose in 2008 and blame everything on the Democrats.
One of the more interesting aspects of the speech is the unresolved question of what Bush will do if/when the Maliki government doesn't live up to his expectations.... according to Bush, if we withdraw there will be a region wide conflict and Iraq will become a terrorist haven, etc.... So, withdrawal isn't an option if/when Maliki doesn't perform as promised. ...so either we'll just "stay the course" with Iraq's "democratically elected" government in place -- or we'll engineer a coup to replace Maliki with someone else. (To be precise, Maliki will decide to "resign"....) The question, of course, is who we'd install to run Iraq the way we want it to be run..... Posted by: p.lukasiak at January 11, 2007 01:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think the conversation has moved past whether the ISG or this plan are good, and moved on to what can a concerned citizen or a concerned member of congress do to stop a bad plan that is just going to waste lives and money? And I'd be interested in what our host is willing do stomach in opposing and trying to prevent lousy strategy. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 11, 2007 02:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
One of the more interesting aspects of the speech is the unresolved question of what Bush will do if/when the Maliki government doesn't live up to his expectations.... Just heard General Odom on the radio. His take is that Bush is positioning himself so that he can either 1) run out the clock, or 2) act surprised and disappointed when Maliki can't deliver, and then begin something like a withdrawal. I don't know if I heard any of those subtexts, but that's what Odom says..... Posted by: sglover at January 11, 2007 03:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
It does in some ways appear to be a plan for leaving or pulling back once the too-little, too-lateness of it is proven -- at which point blame can be placed squarely on the Iraqis and we can utter the "gave them many opportunities" explanation. This might also appear to let the Decider decide to pull back, rather than having to hear it from daddy's friends ands advisors. Posted by: TG at January 11, 2007 04:03 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Bush has chosen (surprise!) more faith-based adventurism." Come on Greg. I disagree with the President as much as you do, but he was clearly simply signing off with a "god save the state" epithet, no different than any president since Washington. Theres plenty of things to criticize (as you've already done so well) in this speech; theres no need to manipulate his words to cast the entire proposal as "faith-based adventurism". Posted by: Jeremy at January 11, 2007 04:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
The "hail mary" metaphor is actually too kind to Bush. Hail mary passes make a morbid kind of sense when you are down to the last few seconds of a game and have to score a touchdown to win, in a binary win-lose situation. That metaphor may be fairly accurate as a description of Bush's personal political fortunes and place in history, but it is far from the truth about the strategic situation for the U.S. in Iraq. For the United States--as opposed to for Bush personally--the situation is bad, but not (yet) nearly so dire. The situation in Iraq undoubtedly poses an existential threat to Bush's historical legacy, but not yet does it pose an existential threat to the United States. Come what may, the country will lumber on after January '09, and a realistic assessment of the country's options at this point do not point to a binary win/lose situation, but rather to a nuanced lose/lose-worse situation. However, instead of focusing on our country's long-term real interests, Bush and team are throwing a hail mary for his legacy. In other words, the better football metaphor is that Bush is like a quarterback who has thrown three interceptions in the first half of the game. But as the coach responds to the quarterback's incompetence by choosing to call for handoffs to the running back, the quarterback is deciding unilaterally to override the coach by calling an audible for a hail mary pass, hoping for a miracle that can to salvage his reputation. Some might call it tantamount to treason that the CinC would put his own long-shot political fantasies so clearly ahead of improving the long-term interests of the country. If this were a football game, the coach would certainly bench the quarterback at this point; alas, in our game of political football, we have no realistic option for such. Posted by: Nils at January 11, 2007 04:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
It does in some ways appear to be a plan for leaving or pulling back once the too-little, too-lateness of it is proven -- at which point blame can be placed squarely on the Iraqis and we can utter the "gave them many opportunities" explanation. sorry, but according to Bush this still leave Iraq in the hands of the "terrists" -- and while Bush obviously doesn't think his legacy will rest on how many Iraqis die as a result of his idiocy, he is scared to death of being judged as the guy who was responsible for Iraq becoming Al Qaeda central..... IMHO, this "plan" is just a means by which Bush will find a justification for a war with Iran --- he has finally figured out that his "Iraq" legacy will be a disaster regardless of what he does, and is hoping that a "successful" attack on Iran will be what is cited in the first line of his obituary....
Jeremy: While Greg D. is certainly capable of answering for himself; I would hazard a guess that his reference to "faith-based adventurism" wrt President Bush's "surge" speech was not referring to his sign-off, or to any particular section of his address, but to his, and his Administration's, entire war/Middle East/"War on Terror"/diplomatic policy in general. A collection of dubious and debatable* policies which have, since September of 2001, pretty much failed in virtually every instance; but to which George W. Bush and his regime lackeys seem determined to cling ever harder as evidence of their failure mounts up. *debatable, that is, if anyone in the Adminstration would actually debate them: instead, the glib and facile "neo-con" bromides - especially those regarding the use of US military force - have been taken as unquestionable dogma - hence the "faith-based" bit (I think) Posted by: Jay C at January 11, 2007 05:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, With all due respect, you just don't get it, do you? "Diplomatic crisis management throughout the region??" WTF?!? WE DON'T DO DIPLOMACY!! People/states know what they're supposed to do. You need to listen to Rush more. He explains this very clearly. * * * January 21, 2009 can't come soon enough--and I do pray that the situation, by then, will still be reparable. Posted by: dell at January 12, 2007 01:48 AM | Permalink to this comment
instead of contributing to global warming with voluminous hot air.... why don't we wait and see. because our voluminous egos won't wait for that? Posted by: neill at January 12, 2007 06:43 AM | Permalink to this comment
Neill, good idea. You first. Figure out how long you're willing to wait and see -- another three years minimum, right? And shut up until then.
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
