Initial reactions to Bush's speech
- Once again, Bush did not say much of any substance. This speech was supposed to outline the plan for "Victory in Iraq" (that's the White House's title, not mine), but instead it was once again mostly about "See what a good job we have done in Iraq," and "We will not cut and run."
- Bush said that people complaining that we have not learned lessons and applied them in Iraq are "flat wrong." As evidence, he noted that the military commanders on the ground have adapted and are adapting their tactics. The problem is NOT with the military commanders on the ground. The problem is with the civilian leaders--most notably Bush and Rumskull. As I have explained in detail (Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period, A note on the applicability of JP 5-00.1, and More on the principles in JP 5.00-1), Bush and Rumskull have always been primarily responsible for determining the long-range overall goals and strategies to achieve those goals. The military commanders on the ground are dealing with the day-to-day realities of combat and survival. Those factors are not the same as setting the overall goals and strategies for "Victory in Iraq."
- A quick review of the executive summary of "Victory in Iraq" (which was necessary since the speech did not really discuss the plan) shows that this is the type of planning that should have been done BEFORE THE WAR EVER STARTED. Instead, it comes FOUR FREAKIN' YEARS LATER.
- Bush also said that Iraq would not become another Afghanistan. News flash for you, George: in some ways Iraq is Afghanistan of the past. Many Al Qaeda leaders learned and honed their violent skills in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. It was a real-life combat training ground. Under the Taliban, Afghanistan was still a training ground, but there was no actual combat. Iraq is now the real-life combat training ground. Terrorists are learning and honing skills in a way that did not exist after the Soviets left Afghanistan and before we invaded Iraq. Now the terrorists do not have to go to the trouble and expense of supporting a regime like the Taliban because we are providing the training ground for free.
- Once again, Bush singled out one soldier killed in Iraq in a speech. And he still has not attended even one funeral or memorial service for anyone killed in Iraq.
posted by WCharles @ 11/30/2005 09:56:00 AM
4 Comments:
I have tried to defend a politically conservative philosophy on this blog and by extension defend Bush. Nothing has shaken my resolve to defend conservatism.
When Bush announced we were invading Iraq, it left me with a horrible sinking feeling. The terrorists are redefining the rules of war and we are stuck with our vision of how the battle should be fought. Plus, the terrorists are not just defending the borders of their country, they are fighting for their vision of how we all ought to live. There is a fear that cutting and running will turn Iraq over to the Taliban-like elements that exist there now. Well, just exactly what are we doing to avoid that? Do we have a clue how to attack the problem?
Multiculturalism says we should accept people for what they are - we should be inclusionary. That includes people who think us evil and want to destroy us and our culture? This is not as simple as some want us to believe. I wish we had never invaded, but we did and must finish the job. If we "lose" this war coming on the heels of VietNam and the Gulf War, both of which were not victories for the US, we may as well hand over the keys to the cities to the terrorists. Carter's perception of a country in malaise will be mild compared to what will happen.
"Nothing has shaken my resolve to defend conservatism."
And as we have discussed, the Bush administration does not seem to be about true conservatism. And this is a real shame because true conservative principles should be discussed and examined, and they have been pushed aside and lost in partisan vitriol.
"...we are stuck with our vision of how the battle should be fought."
More to the point, we are stuck with the Bush administration's delusional vision of what should be accomplished. The neocons' vision is so out of touch with reality, it is frightening. Just look at what Brent Scowcroft said a few months ago (and I am still working on a post about that).
"Do we have a clue how to attack the problem?"
Plenty of people had many clues, but Rumskull, Wolfowitless, Rice, etc. shut them out of the process.
"I wish we had never invaded, but we did and must finish the job."
Here is one of those instances in which we agree. Part of what infuriates me is that by invading Iraq, our options as to how to "win" were drastically reduced. Moreover, we were put in a bit of a Catch 22. We cannot afford--for all kinds of reasons--to leave before the "job is done." However, there has never been a definition of what will constitute a finished job. Moreover, for many reasons (some of which I have explained elsewhere) it is highly unlikely that Iraq will ever be stable in our lifetimes whether we are there or not. And again, those reasons were all known and articulated before the war.
Well, it seems we agreed pretty much down the line on this post. I assume you picked up my drift in my first paragraph when I said I still defended conservatism, but intentionally did not say I still defend Bush.
And I completely that Iraq will remain unstable for years to come. I keep thinking back to the Crusades or the conquest of Spain, both which lasted centuries. Those were to a great extent religious wars between Christians and Muslims, though politics played a role too. There are parallels to our current conflict.
"I assume you picked up my drift..."
Absolutely.
"I keep thinking back to the Crusades or the conquest of Spain...There are parallels to our current conflict.
Indeed there are, and these are just a few of the lessons that went unheeded. Whether we here in the West think it is reasonable or not, the fact remains that in the Arab world, the Crusades are still a living memory.
Post a Comment
<< Home