President George Bush delivered a two-pronged message on Iraq tonight in a speech that some analysts on cable television said Republicans wished he would not have given at all.
MESSAGE ONE: There will be limited troop reductions. 2,200 Marines will return to the U.S. immediately and will not be replaced. An additional 3,500 Army brigade troops will be home by Christmas.. These units were already scheduled to come home, but now, they will not be replaced. And:
Bush’s plan is to withdraw five brigades by mid-July — approximately 23,000 troops, leaving about 137,000 U.S. troops in place by next summer.
While Bush portrayed the redeployment as a troop withdrawal, there will actually be 7,000 more troops in Iraq next summer than there were before Bush deployed additional forces to Iraq in January as part of a troop surge plan to quell sectarian violence.
MESSAGE TWO: The Iraqis want a long term security arrangement with the United States. Translation: He’s moving towards the idea that despite groups of troops being brought home, the United States will have military in Iraq for literally years.
This was even more clear, from all accounts on cable news networks this evening, in the President’s comments to reporters before the speech. Here’s what NBC News’ Brian Williams has posted about that on the MSNBC website:
He will say the Iraqis are asking the United States to enter into discussions about its long-term presence in Iraq, and the president is known to favor a presence modeled — at far fewer numbers of troops — on that of U.S. forces in South Korea. He believes an American presence in Iraq is part of an overall Middle East policy and is aware of the view that many Americans have turned isolationist.
Bush also made it clear that even if troops are being withdrawn, he can send them back in if he wants to:
The president indicated, rather forcefully, that he is against a draft and doesn’t feel pressure to draw down military forces based on the end of tours of duty coming due. He further indicated that if more troops were needed in Iraq (or anywhere else, for that matter), the Guard and Reserve numbers could be increased. The president is known to be following enlistment figures closely — more important to him is RE-enlistment, based on his contention that it is a barometer of discontent in the military ranks.
The full text of Bush’s message is here. Some reactions from politicians of both parties are HERE.
The speech is fascinating due to several factors and questions that arises:
1. Some analysts on cable news networks said some key Republicans would have rather have Bush NOT delivered this speech since they felt General David Petraeous had come across so well on TV and been effective in his talk before Congress. But Bush was known to want to take some public credit for the troop drawdown.
2. How will the idea of a long term troop commitment like Korea play? Will that aspect get more publicity and discussion? If so, what will be the public — and Republicans-running-for-relection — reaction?
3. The Democrats have reportedly made some way in huddling with moderate Republicans to try and win at least some (relatively minor) victories on altering aspects of Iraq policy. How will Bush’s comments about drawing down the troops and hinting at a U.S. presence that could potentially last for decades influence the GOPers?
4. This was a glass is half full half empty speech. Will most Americans react to this as the glass being half empty (so many troops will remain) or half full (so many will come out).
5. It’s clear now more than ever that Bush intends to gift the Iraq mess to whoever replaces him — Democrat or Republican. It’s clear Democrats are going to be motivated to continue to clamor for some change (with little luck in doing so). But will Republicans start to desert Bush if the public reacts badly to aspects of this speech?
The key is how the public perceives it. Just as in interpersonal relations, perceptions matter and perceptions can be correct or wrong and acting on them has consequences. And, in this case, not acting on them could have consequences…at the ballot box in 2008.
Also be sure to read TMV coblogger Michael Sticking’s post on the speech HERE.
SPECIAL UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has a lengthy and remarkable post. It MUST be read in full. Here is a small part of it:
He seemed almost broken to me. His voice raspy, his eyes watery, his affect exhausted, his facial expression almost bewildered. I thought I would feel angry; but I found myself verging toward pity. The case was so weak, the argument so thin, the evidence for optimism so obviously strained that one wondered whom he thought he was persuading. And the way he framed his case was still divorced from the reality we see in front of our nose: that Iraq is not, as he still seems to believe, full of ordinary people longing for democracy and somehow stymied solely by “extremists” or al Qaeda or Iran, but a country full of groups of people who cannot trust one another, who are still living in the wake of unimaginable totalitarian trauma, who have murdered and tortured and butchered each other in pursuit of religious and ethnic pride and honor for centuries. This is what Bush cannot recognize: there is no Iraq. There are no Iraqis.
It goes on and ends with this:
But it seems he will get his way; and his party will live with the consequences. So, alas, will all of us. If the Democrats and adult Republicans cannot stop this slow march to an even lower circle of hell, then we have only one recourse yet: to pray that we’re wrong, that a miracle can happen, and that the enormous sacrifices of so many good, brave and brilliant men and women are not ultimately in vain.
Read all of it.
This is what Bush promised in his January speech on the surge.
ADDITIONAL RELATED NEWS STORIES:
Bush tries to sell Americans on limited troop reductions in Iraq
Dems vow to fight Bush’s ‘endless’ strategy
The real reason Bush is withdrawing troops from Iraq
Bush appeal undercut by killing of Sunni ally
The Ambitious Delusions of George Bush and David Petraeus
Why Officers Differ on Troop Reductions
. HERE’S A CROSS SECTION OF SOME OTHER WEBLOG OPINION:
We garrisoned troops in these three countries for half a century, as we did in Saudi Arabia for about a decade. The periods of military government in Japan and Germany were relatively brief. And most importantly we never mounted counter-insurgency operations in any of these countries.
This simple fact tells you that all these Korean, Japan, Germany analogies are bogus.
And fundamentally why was this sustainable? Because the US troop presence was a defense against a perceived greater threat — either the Soviet Union or the Soviet Union and China. We might add that this is also the premise of our military presence in the Balkans.
On neither count is anything remotely like this in Iraq. The premise is an indefinite period of counter-insurgency and military occupation. And if things calmed down, who would we be defending Iraq against? The question answers itself. No one. If Iraq could get its act together it could certainly defend itself as it did for many decades. We are defending Iraq against itself.
–Glenn Reynolds aka InstaPundit:
So I watched the speech. It was okay — an average performance for Bush, not especially good or bad — but I’m not sure it really added much, post-Petraeus. It will, however, probably pull a response from MoveOn, which based on this week’s experience can only help the Bush Administration.
—Hot Air’s Allahpundit, on the security arrangement:
That’s an odd thing to announce now, when he’s trying to reap the political benefits of a (very limited) withdrawal, but there you go. It also flies in the face not only of Sadr’s nationalist rhetoric but poll after poll of Iraqi citizens who say they want the United States out. Bush wants U.S. troops there to keep Tehran on its toes, though, and also to act as a “tripwire†(again, a la South Korea) in case Iranian forces try to assert themselves inside the country. The more menacing Iran is, the more you can expect Iraqis to grudgingly accept the idea, so long as the “security†part of the enduring relationship involves a small number of troops and, in all likelihood, bases in Kurdistan.
–Taylor Marsh, writing on The Huffington Post:
Mr. Bush can throw in the “fewer American troops” pony, but the the highlighted section above is ominous. What it implies is that Mr. Bush is about to enter into an agreement with the Maliki government that will extend beyond his presidency and commit the U.S. permanently to Iraq. This was obviously the plan all along, especially when you take in the largest embassy on earth, and the football-long bases for troops.
Korea is the model? Only in Bush’s little mind. We haven’t taken serious casualties in Korea since the late 1960s. Does anyone believe casualty rates will plummet with Bush’s new Operation Enduring Nightmare?
To many Americans who have been looking for a firm deadline to the war they did not get get the answers they were looking for. However the president has layed out an immediate course of action and left room in the future for adaptability and mobility which to me seems to be the logical and smart thing to do. As someone who has read both Sun Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s Art of War as well as studied other classical literature on politic and war it is of my opinion based on this knowledge that having an unflexible plan for a war with no leeway or mobility is not just a bad plan but just plain stupid and any one in politics who calls for such a timeline is going against most scholars in military history and they themselves now share the title of stupid.
In summary we the American people as well as the people of Iraq and the world now have a clearer view of the situation in Iraq and if current trends continue sometime in the next several years America will be able to withdraw from a daily combat position in Iraq.
I have just heard George Bush talking about “moral imperatives”. I have just written my Congressman. It seems to me that we have a moral imperative to get our troops out of Iraq. It seems clear that the average human in the territory we call Iraq does not identify as an Iraqi–rather they identify as a Sunni or Shia or “tribal” Certainly makes it hard to arrive at any acceptable “political solution”.
—Red State has an open thread. One quote:
The president hit a home run tonight. I agree the delivery was key. He was strong, confident, commanding, somber, and open all at the same time. He reached out to Dems and asked them to agree with him on the moral imperative of helping our ally Iraq.
Then [Senator Jack Reed comes on and tells the president to shove it. I loved the line where Reed said “our military can defeat any enemy on the field of battle.” Yes Senator, except this one, eh? If Reed believes that, what not get the h*ll out of the way and let them do it?
President Bush wins this round hands down.
I, for one, don’t agree at all. America doesn’t have a vital interest in providing hope ANYWHERE. And chaos in the Middle East actually works to our benefit. The first part of “divide and conquer” is “divide”. The neocon notion of “unify and convince” is hopeless….
….Thus speaks the man who is actively allowing tens of millions of Mexicans to invade the country. What a contemptible creature. Not even Clinton lied so blatantly.
—The Democratic Daily has Senator John Kerry’s reaction, parts of a Washington Post piece that fact checked the speech and found that parts contradicted government reports, and a video of Chris Matthews bluntly disputing Mr. Bush’s statement about 36 nations updating the war.
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.
—Right Wing Nut House (the most misnamed blog on the Internet) has an extensive post that must be read in full. Here is a SMALL portion of it:
It would help if the President would give us the castor oil with the honey when he talks about Iraq. He never has. The Iraq he talked about in his speech does not exist. It is not a place of “freedom†or “democracy.†A legitimate argument can be made that it doesn’t even have a government. Holding elections does not define a nation as a democracy. There is no freedom without citizens being secure in their property and lives. The government in Iraq cannot guarantee either and in fact, elements of that government are consciously engaged in activities to dispossess Sunni Muslims of both.
….I always expect too much from Bush which is why I’m always disappointed. Perhaps because in these perilous times, I think we should expect more from our presidents than the rhetoric of the stump. Bush is not a bad man nor is he stupid. He is simply inadequate.
That may be the most damning thing you can say about any president.
But what about all of those greedy, no-bid, Big Oil and “Nation Buildin’ Bidness†contractors we have over there — you know; the people who actually OUTNUMBER our “boots on the ground†in military uniform — a.k.a., “The Coalition Of The Billing†— what about THOSE [mostly] guys?
When are we going to be bringing a bunch of THEM home so they can begin making an honest living; independent of foreign oil and the blood money from GOP donors? That’s what I’d like to know. A couple of hundred grand, tax-free annually, to simply drive busses, or sling hammers when we have tons of eligible troops to do the same job for sixteen grand a year? Does this make any damned sense to YOU?
—Political scientist Steven Taylor analyzes parts of the speech. One of his reactions:
The problem is that this focus solely on security gains, and wholly ignores that the point of the surge was to allow the Iraqis the time needed for political reconciliation and state building. However, that hasn’t happened. As such, it is difficult to take this assessment seriously, as it clearly ignores the original reason for the surge in the first place. It is classic goal-post moving for political purposes.
But in any event, it’s back to stay the course, even though they won’t call it that. We’ll be saddled with this new half-hearted slogan until the next time they need to buy more time to get us through the rest of Bush’s time in office. As we’ve come to know with this administration, the only thing they know is marketing. But if the product reviews are any indication, few will be willing to buy no matter how “small” the price tag may be.
They need to admit failure. If you really think about it, Bush’s failure signifies a failure of our entire post-Cold War foreign policy. You can blame the neo-conservatives for taking our Establishment off the rails, but the Washington Post waved their pom poms as the Establishment built the apparatus that enabled the neo-conservatives.
Even now they are cheerleading an attack on Iran. The sad fact is that any genocide or regional conflagration that occurs in the Middle East as a direct result of our policies is going to be justifiably blamed on the people at the Washington Post that advocated those policies. And they recognize this. That is why they will do everything in their power to forestall the day of reckoning. And that means that they will advocate a 10-year occupation of Iraq. Because if the day ever comes when they have to account for what they have endorsed, no one will ever listen to them again.
So is it time for the Democrats to lead– like most Americans want them to? Even Republicans who live in moderate districts and must fave non-Confederate voters next year were dismayed with the complete lack of genuineness in Bush’s approach tonight. Tomorrow’s Washington Post claims for them it fell flat. Republicans who have been rubber stamps for his policies and agenda know they are in trouble and tonight probably made it worse. A good example is Susan Collins of Maine, a complete Bush Regime tool who fell in with Lieberman and is probably going to be defeated for re-election. She wasn’t happy tonight…..
….Does this mean the Democrats will start leading– like most Americans would like to see them do? This craven, cowardly, overly cautious lot? Please!
Without jumping down into the political and numerical back and forth of our future in Iraq just now, can anyone name one instance in history where a Nation and its military came away stronger and more secure after a humiliating, non-strategic retreat? I can’t think of one. And that is precisely the myth the Democrats are selling. This Nation was beaten and demoralized post-Vietnam. And there is no reason to believe the same thing wouldn’t happen, again – assuming we bid a too hasty retreat from Iraq. Running from Afghanistan didn’t exactly do the former Soviet Empire much good, now did it?
Until portions of the Middle East modernize politically and economically – read democracy and capitalism – there will forever remain a disenfranchised population ripe for exploitation at the hands of radical Islamists. Ultimately, as regards our long term security and strategic fortunes, there is only one answer to the question of what to do about Iraq: Win, dammit, Win!
–Pejman Yousefzadeh writing in Red State:
One beneficial effect from any withdrawal of troops is that it will allow us to test the proposition–advanced by Democrats–that a troop withdrawal is just the thing that we need in order to spur the Iraqis into reaching a political settlement. Logically, the chances of such a settlement coming about are supposed to go up with a troop withdrawal, right? If we are no closer to reaching a settlement as the surge comes to an end, are we as a nation then prepared to admit that a mere troop withdrawal will not be enough in order to prompt a political settlement in Iraq? Will the argument that the only way we can save the domestic situation in Iraq is to leave thus go the way of the dodo?
Because in those circumstances, it should.
Watching the president’s speech last night, I was reminded of a de-motivational poster I saw a couple of years ago: “Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never quit and never win are idiots.â€
Bush’s White House address wasn’t just unpersuasive and dishonest — though it was both of those — it was also a bad joke. He demands that we reward failure. He insists that his record of getting every aspect of this conflict wrong thus far justifies more faith in his judgment. He implores us not to believe our lying eyes.
Indeed, last night’s speech represented a digression on the president’s part. In January, when his escalation strategy was unveiled, Bush emphasized a series of benchmarks and insisted that the U.S. commitment to Iraq is not “open-ended.†As of 12 hours ago, that rhetoric is gone, replaced with fictional claims about non-existent “progress.â€
They staged the arguments for war for the 2002 elections, spent 2004 talking about “cut and run defeatocrats”, used 2006 to argue that everything was going great, and now for the 2008 election cycle, Bush is going to remove a token number of troops by next July to give the appearance that he’s ending his little charade in Iraq.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.