|
My apologies for not being around after Bush's speech last night. My
computer screen went black on me right as the speech ended, and has not
yet let its little light shine bright again. Plus, it made this really
ominous fizzle noise when I shut it down. My guess is anytime your computer sounds like frying bacon, you need a new computer. I'm
using one of the toss-asides at the Townhall office right now, so I
hope that will hold up for me. Apologies specifically to one of my
liberal commenters (something along the lines of "snapdigger," but
slightly different) who had accused me of not opining sufficiently on
the Bush plan. I had planned to after I, you know, heard the speech and told him so, but was obviously unable to do that.
As for the speech, a few impressions. Bush sounded rather
soft-spoken, didn't he? He's in a weird place. He has to sound contrite
because mistakes have been made, but he also has to sound the alarm
about the ideological fight in which we're engaged. He has to apologize
and pep talk; he has to be realistic while communicating an idealistic
vision. And, there's really no hope of convincing anti-war types
anymore, so both voices are to reassure folks who were supportive and
are waning, and folks who remain supportive but need some bucking up. I
think he succeeded in being straightforward and contrite. The pep talk
part wasn't so great. Aside
from adding new troops, I didn't see a whole lot of "new" in
the speech. A lot of it is stuff we've been doing, but the pledge is
that we'll do it better, smoother, more. Economic and heart-and-mind
efforts will be more "coordinated" and "integrated." Training of Iraqi
troops will be more "intensive" and done by more U.S. troops. On a
purely political note, I thought the line about surrender not happening
on the "deck of a battleship," while true, was an unfortunate evocation
of the "Mission Accomplished" incident. I would have steered clear of
that particular phrase.
I did
like the idea that more boots on the ground will allow troops (American
and Iraqi) to hold neighborhoods after they've been cleared of
insurgents. Many Iraqi civilians and tribal leaders are afraid, with
good reason, to support U.S. troops in efforts to clear insurgents when
they clear them and then have to move onto the next neighborhood. If
civilians openly back Iraqi Army and U.S. troops, when insurgents
inevitably pour back in, they have to pay for it. As Bill at INDC's Fallujan interview subject said yesterday, they're going to back the
"strong horse" for self-preservation. If Iraqi/American troops can stay
in one place and enforce order, they can earn more trust and lower the
risk of backing Iraqi/American troops by being the strong horse. Four thousand more troops in Anbar province are meant to increase
security there and cut off terrorist highways from Iran and Syria. As
Badgers Forward, who's an Army officer in Ramadi, mentioned the other
day, more troops in that area will inevitably mean more security, which
will mean a greater likelihood that Iraqi civilians will side with
troops instead of insurgents. Of course, a lot of how that plays out is
dependent on how things go in Baghdad. And, a lot of that is dependent on how Iraqis and the Iraqi
government react. Maliki was talking tough yesterday about militias,
but he's done that before. One of the benchmarks for the Iraqi
government is to make sure that insurgents and militants are not caught
and released based on tribal and political considerations. Obviously,
they have to be treated the same-- Sunni and Shia-- if there is to be
security, but that's not what has been happening. The problem is,
there's not a lot of talk about how
that's gonna get done. All governments have corruption. A nascent
government in a war-torn country is just more susceptible to it. Given
that this particular kind of corruption is based on centuries of tribal
and religious sectarianism, how do you root it out? I would have liked
to have heard more about that. Then,
of course, you've got the insurgents extorting "protection" money from
contractors , preventing rebuilding, and the natural inclination of
people in an uncertain, impoverished environment to help whichever side
makes it worth their while. That's how you get farmers and fathers
dropping of IEDs for pocket change. How do you get past that? Baby, baby steps, I imagine, and more troops, more eyes, more patrolling helps all of it.
I feel pretty good about the fact that John McCain, who has been the
leader on calling for more boots on the ground and is a good voice on
military matters, feels like the job is doable with 21,500 more troops.
Oliver North also spoke out in favor of it last night on Fox. I am no
military expert, nor have I ever claimed to be, so I have to listen to
these guys and gather what I can from what I read and hear. A lot of the anti-war Left is saying that Abizaid and Casey are out
because they're anti-surge, and Bush put another yes-man in place, blah,
blah, blah. Unfortunately, the Left has also been saying that this has
been a disaster since the beginning, that the light footprint plan was
never viable, and that Bush should change course instead of "staying"
it. So, he changes the plan, and immediately, that's a bad move, too.
They never wanted a change in plans. They just want Bush to fail, which
unfortunately means America must fail. Blackfive--who was more impressed with the speech than I-- is, more importantly, impressed with Gen. Petraeus,
who replaced Casey. He's quick on his feet, adaptable, says Blackfive,
which is good because "no plan survives the battlefield." Michelle is on the ground in Baghdad. She's got pictures of the Baghdad slums,
where folks are illegally diverting water and electricity because
they've been run out of their homes by terrorists, and the Maliki
government doesn't recognize their existence.
Bryan Preston, who is with her, has a really interesting
analysis of conditions on the ground and the divisions and cultural
complexities that make the conditions what they are. Really good read.
As for the Democrat response to Bush, I simply LOVE how all the good
things that have happened in Iraq, which Democrats have been trashing
as worthless for four years, are now worthwhile only after they're done and Democrats didn't have to risk any political skin to support them or speak out for them: And we have given
the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a
hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people.
We've given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution,
hold their own free elections and establish their own government. We
Americans and a few allies have protected Iraq when no one else would. Uhh, what??? Since when has deposing Saddam, the Iraqi constitution,
the Iraqi people voting, and protecting Iraq meant a damn thing to
Democrats? I'll tell you when-- since about the time they found it
politically expedient to endorse them in retrospect to make themselves
look sufficiently pro-troops while they do their best to ensure defeat
for the same troops. That's when. The Democrats now admit that strides have been made by the Iraqi
people, but they want to abandon them and that progress post haste.
Bush and supporters of the war effort recognize that things have not
gone the way they should have, look to change plans, and continue to
fight so that the strides of days gone by and the sacrifices they
required are not in vain. Some were saying this may be the most important speech of Bush's
career. I think this is the last bet Bush can lay on Iraq. The American
people want victory, but they're impatient. But the best sign that
victory in Iraq is possible is that only a couple Democrats are fool
enough to actually stand up against the new plan and threaten funding.
They're CYAing in case this works out, so they can retroactively praise
the progress they denigrate for the next year.
|