The Bush Speech
September 14, 2007 by Pieter Dorsman
Had this been 2003, last night’s George Bush’s speech would have gone down with the then so omnipresent rounds of applause and praise for the president’s determined stance. The references to America’s security and al-Qaeda gave it the perfect ‘2003 feel’ that Bush speeches required in order to get traction on both sides of the aisle, which they often did. And by 2003 standards, the logic Bush used was compelling given the fresh encounters with al-Qaeda on American soil.
Of course, we are now more than four-and-a-half years into this project and despite the initial successes that Petraeus has delivered to Congress this week, the speech failed to address what most listeners wanted to hear. That in itself should be fine as in grave circumstances it is up to President to chart a course and deliver a painful message and ask his citizens for support and resolve. But what happened last night wasn’t that. It was another installment of the ‘adapt-our-strategy-as-we-go routine’, once more recycling the flawed notion that our major adversary in Iraq is al-Qaeda. The perplexing conclusion after digesting Bush’s words is that the next occupant of the White House will have inherited a prolonged US presence in Iraq, based on a questionable strategy. And if the post-speech reactions are anything to go by get ready for a “Bush broke it, Clinton owns it” scenario.
Still, there are merits for a continued US stay in parts of Iraq and other selected locations in the Middle East, much like it kept a few select bases in The Philippines following the Vietnam War. Such a presence could assist in exercising influence by acting as a forceful mediator in a part of the world where the US and the free world at large have vital interests, most notably given Iran’s destabilizing tendencies. We can however no longer be sure that the Iraqi heartland is the right location for that.
To basically ask Americans to support a continued stay with only marginally reduced troop levels in order to secure a unified and free Iraq, reveals a grave disconnect between the 2003-mindset and the present day reality. Even the prospect of a tainted legacy failed to give Bush the incentive to offer a reality-based message that Americans could try to accept and live with. Instead they’re left wondering if the next speech will offer the same past-its-due-date rhetoric based on unattainable goals.
When putting more troops in in order to create something tangible that would please the US people failed, they take troops out in order to stimulate the people a little (well, that, and troops cannot sustain operations fifteen months on, let alone 18). What’s wrong with all this?
[...] has permeated what is left of the Bush presidency by Todd Purdum. If you wonder why I felt that last week’s speech was ‘2003′ read Purdum’s piece, as it nicely corroborates my [...]