I know there have been objections to the starting of new threads concerning new utterances by the administration, but is there any precedent for a head of state essentially challenging armed opponents to attack troops deployed abroad?
What could he have been thinking? What possible positive spin can the administration put on this? Who does this appeal to? Will the Dems have the brains and balls to use this against him? Will this ill-advised challenge affect his culpability should insurgent attacks and US deaths increase?
Well… you know… in an odd way, it was actually a great moment - but let me qualify that very quickly if I may.
In the narrow context of a Commander in Chief making a statement designed to raise the morale of his troops on the ground - many of whom must be feeling rather worried when their number is up next - well, it was quite an inspiring thing to say as a leadership kinda thing. It will doubtless be welcome to the troops on the ground is what I’m trying to say.
But that being said, was it Churchillian? No… during the summer of 1940 and the London Blitz, the Luftwaffe were sending up to 800 planes at a time over the Thames. The classic rallying cry of “We Shall fight them on the beaches. We shall never surrender…” was a truly memorable call to arms. It was arguably the most famous war cry of the 20th Century. I’m not sure President Bush will ever be famous for his stirring oratory sadly. Which is a real shame. The USA deserves someone as good as Churchill if you ask me.
However, a hundred years from now? I suspect Gulf War II will come to be seen as somewhat similar to the US annexation of The Phillipines 100 years earlier. Nothing particularly noble or strategically outstanding.
When faced with overpowering military might, armed insurgents of an occupied country have traditionally adopted guerilla tactics against economic and political targets.
Like flying hijacked planes into buildings, for example.
Bring it on?
The specific quote as presented by numerous sources reads as follows:
**“There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there,” Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is, 'Bring ‘em on.’
“We will deal with them harshly if they continue to try to bring harm to the Iraqi people.”**
It’s one thing to express courage and another to invite attacks like a drunken fratboy. If I had any relatives over there, I’d be pretty outraged right now.
I imagine there’s a certain element of our country that will go for that since we have no shortage of drunken frat boys or former drunken frat boys, but if the armed restistance is still dogging the troops by next year, expect this to bite him in the ass.
I’m trying really hard to believe that GWB was, consciously or not, trying to echo the famous comment “Nuts” uttered by Gen. McCauliff at Bastogne. Nope, can’t do it. Actually, I think it’s more likely just another example of the current President’s near-total parochialism, and the sporting-event view he seems to have on issues involving military action.
Yeah, the comment may have some undefined morale effect beneficial to the attitudes of the US forces in Iraq. Regarding efforts to reduce the level of violence in that country, however, do childish taunts of this nature serve any useful purpose?
Bush is really scaring the hell out of me with his macho talk. And that’s all it is. He’s no different from the scrappy little kid down the block who talks a good game but hides behind his big brother when confronted directly.
The problem is, his big brother is the troops over there, all of whom are sitting ducks for any guerrilla with a bug up his butt and a gun.
On a personal note, whenever I hear Bush say stuff like this, I am damn glad Airman is home and safe. There’s no telling what could happen otherwise.
You know, it probably took Karl Rove and his team of image consultants, speechwriters, and focus groups three weeks to come up with that particular line, preferring it to the other choices like:
(“There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is…”)
“…step up motherf*ckers.”
“…you mess with the best you die like the rest.”
“…boot to the head!”
and (Karl’s favorite)
“…do not be misunderstanding me now or even later. We will crush you like little girly men with our mighty guns.”
This kind of bluster makes me remember why I prefer my politicians to be mealy mouthed diplomats. Sure they don’t sound or act tough but they think before they speak and actually get the results they are looking for (If they are good meally mouthed diplomats).
There have been several threads like this recently, along with detractors of continually criticizing everything the president says, but I do not seem to recall near daily briefings by the White House press secretary under any other president in my time (which goes back to Reagan) that start with, “What the president really meant was…”
I would say that it is Bush’s fault for being an idiot, but as we all know no modern politician writes their own material. So who in God’s name keeps coming up with this stuff and is it the same imbecile who decided to use the word “crusade” when this whole this was starting up?
I know I would be laughing at us if I lived somewhere else. As it is I just sigh a lot.
I would respect the line more if the President had actually served in combat, getting his ass shot at, instead of cooling his heels in Texas and Louisiana during the Vietnam war.
Say what you will about Clinton’s draft-dodging escapades, but I don’t recall him strutting around in public with B-movie machismo during his years in office.
The main way for US troops to distinguish guerillas from civilians is when the guerillas shoot at them. Encouraging guerillas to shoot at our troops is a way to get the guerillas to commit suicide.
Guerillas can’t and shouldn’t fight straight-up battles with regulars. They should snipe, raid, ambush, sabotage, and run away whenever attacked themselves. If a few guerillas are goaded into attacking US soldiers, that’s a GOOD thing, since that means fewer surviving guerillas.
I think that most of the hit and run raids have resulted in few or no enemy casualties. They do result in an increase in aggressive, invasive US tactics that are the PR nightmares of coalition forces.