Bush Speech: Scorecard Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Let's measure Bush along the criteria laid out the other night:

#1 - Willingness to Face Reality About Conditions on the Ground: A-. The speech was less upbeat and sugarcoated than expected.   Impression was that we're in a very tough struggle.

#2 - Honest Appraisal of Iraqi Security Forces: B. Here, too, I don't think Bush gave us a lot of reason for false optimism.  But even his somber assessment did overstate the facts.

#3 - Characterization of the Insurgency:  C.  By conflating the insurgents with al Qaeda Bush made out as though the battles in Baghdad are a kind of retaliation for 9/11. 

#4 - Rejection of Partisanship: B.  He did avoid partisanship, but he tacitly accused those with misgivings about staying the course as weak-willed and unpatriotic instead of acknowledging that events have given rise to legitimate concerns.

#5 - A Commitment to Stronger Support for U.S. Troops: D.  Bush urged flag-waving and letter writing, but said nothing about doing more to tangibly support military families or veterans.  This was a surprising gap and will hurt efforts to heighten public support.

# 6 - A Plan to Buttress Flagging Military Recruitment Efforts: D.  Bush flat-out denied that we need more troops, claiming that the generals don't want 'em.  He did appealed for people to enlist; but why should they when we've got all the boots we need?

# 7 - A Plan to Win:  F.  I am surprised and concerned that Bush didn't have more to offer.  The 3 steps he outlined are all retreads.  Moreover, the first two are essentially the same.  He said nothing about attracting foreign troops, denying that this is even a problem (for the sobering facts about everyone from Spain to the Kingdom of Tonga pulling out on us, see here).  There was nothing significant about bolstering the training effort, the reconstruction progress, or the political process.  He simply urged the country to stay what a growing number of Americans believe is a failing course.

#8 - An Honest Assessment of Why Iraq Matters: D.  Bush gave some legitimate rationales for staying in Iraq, including that we need to show we're prepared to see things through and that a stable Middle East - if achievable - will have deep and broad benefits.  But he recycled the long-discredited claim of a link between 9/11 and Iraq and sought to sidestep the fact that it is our war that has made Iraq a terrorist hotbed.  Very misleading claims that the public is highly dubious about.

We also published a Top 10 List of Things To Do and Not To Do in Iraq:

On the list of "To Do's" its apparent there are 3 Bush doing little or none of:  1) Finding ways to get other countries a lot more involved; 2) Expanding the UN's role; and 4) Rethinking the risk-reward calculus for our military.  The picture is better when it comes to 2) Investing in long-term training of the Iraqi military.  On 5) Investing in understanding the insurgency there's reason for skepticism given Bush's insistence on lumping all terrorists together with al Qaeda.

On the list of "Not To Do's" Bush is right on in terms of 1) Refusing to announce a timetable for withdrawal.  He's unaccountably failed to 2) Announce that the U.S. does not seek permanent bases in Iraq.  Though he claims that increasing the # of U.S. troops would send a troublesome signal in terms of our intent to remain, he won't do the obvious and make it clear that we plan to ultimately leave Iraq to the Iraqis. 

On 3) misleading the public about how the war effort is going Bush gets mixed marks, though somewhat improved after tonight.  On 4) letting money be an obstacle one wonders why nothing new for our troops was announced tonight.  On 5) overstating prospects for Iraqification, the absence of a plan to draw in further foreign commitments does suggest just this.

Comments

[Nichole]

What you need to do is weight your criteria. Failure to accomplish #8 overrides all else, if you ask me.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Bush not only failed to provide a plan to win; he also failed to provide a clear statement of what winning consists of. "Our mission in Iraq is clear," said the President. But his decription of the mission gives me no idea how to determine when the mission has been completed.

[Cal]

-- He's unaccountably failed to... announce that the U.S. does not seek permanent bases in Iraq.--

Yes, odd that. His advisers have said that we want permanent bases in Iraq, and we are currently building permanent bases in Iraq. It's mystifying, really.

[doc]

....complete waste of time. bush simply restated his original, specious reasoning for invading iraq.

perhaps he did it a little more forcefully and with brio: whoopee.

though, you know, i did dream last night that the WH is brighter than it acts – if your intent in iraq
is to secure a rather large amount of oil; if you are building bases there by the dozen to ‘influence’ the ME; if you have already spent $210 billion on the war with DOD costs alone this year reaching in excess of $400 billion; if part of your overall original objective coming in to the WH was to pare back overall government; if you happen to be of that odd religious ilk that ‘knows’ the ‘rapture’ will happen if only
you give it a nudge here and there…well, hey, you’re doing pretty good, right?

i mean, EVERY government agency/department will take large fiscal hits FY 05, 06 and 07. and if you look around at the states, ronnie ray-gun’s trickle down theory is finally coming true: less federal dollars means less state programs.

and no way china/russia can intercede in iraq– they’d be crazy to risk our nukes, right?

all is golden.

so maybe the WH is brilliant.

because, let's get real for a moment - what effective stance does the next democratic presidential candidate take vis a vis the mess bush and co will leave?

because it won’t be about ‘staying the course’ – whatever insurgency is left in iraq at that point will be pro forma – it will finally be clear to everyone that it’s about the oil.

[Rob]

Assuming for a second, that he isn't stupid, and that everything is motivated an with reason. Doesn't this support what I was saying yesterday?

Bush is doing everything to provide legitimacy for us to stay in Iraq. 1st he and his friends get rich through war profiteering. 2nd any losses of American soldiers, American contractors, or Iraqi lives are "worth the sacrifice" if it means preserving the American way of life.

[Rob]

So if doc and I are right, and it is about the oil. And if Richard Heinberg is right, and global oil capacity has or will soon peak.

How do we duck King Oil to create a national alternative energy party platform, and run with it by 06' 08' and on?

[Rob]

From my way of thinking, energy trumps everything. That's why where in Iraq. If we do not have enough energy, we lose food, jobs, healthcare, dollar value, governmental accountability, and a controllable military to name a few.

Heinberg says that without cheap oil, our technology falls back to 1856. The problem with that of course is that there weren't 363 million people in the U.S. in 1856, and there weren't 6 billion people in the world.

So yes Iraq is important, and no Bush will not say this on national television, print, or anywhere else.

To avert this sort of cataclysm we need first to recognize it being there, and then use it as a motivation for us to keep it from happening.

[JB (not John Bolton)]

It's intellectually dishonest - completely - to attempt to talk about strategy in any form (winning, disentanglement, etc.) without an honest exposition of the initial motivation.

If it was oil then essentially the strategy is to conquer the country.

If it was the so-called 'war on terror' then the first step has to be to get rid of the delusions (not to mention the deluded) that continuing to tear up a country that never was a terrorist threat is going to yield any benefits.

Until the U.S. makes it unequivocally clear that it has no long term interest in Iraq - oil, bases, whatever - there will be no solution. Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Rob]

Well, yes the Titanic chair rearranging has been going on in one for or another since the 50's

All I can tell you is that we have been running out of oil, and this gives us a sort of need to invade Iraq for its oil wealth, and damn the morality of it. This is not unlike an addict killing someone to get their wallet to pay for their next coke fix.

We also aren't very big about correcting the problem. In fact big oil is very much about crushing any drive towards an alternative energy initiative effect enough to bring down the price of oil.

Crazy I know, and yet, how else do you really explain an Iraq policy some 55 years in the making.

[Peter Westre]

Nice breakdown of the speech. The sucking sound that you hear from washington is the desperation of an administration that is waking up to its numerous failures. I linked this blog to my blog.