Please help me understand the Bush speech

Factual Questions
1

This is in general questions rather than debate, because I truly, really, HONESTLY don’t get it. No, I mean REALLY. Forget whether it’s right or wrong for the moment, or political opinions about it, what is the POINT of the troop buildup at that level? What do Bush and co. actually think will be accomplished?

Do they think it’s going to fail and they’ll have an excuse to get rid of al-Maliki? But why would they need to pour more troops in to do that? Do they think it’s going to placate somebody? Who? Do they think it’s going to trigger Armageddon and Jesus will come back? [I’m really leaning towards that one…] Help me out here. WHY??? :dubious:

2

Unguessable.

They have used so much doublespeak, over the years, that it is impossible to divine their true purpose from any statement.

3

You must look at things through a politician’s eyes.

Any US politician needs massive financial backing.
They must also join one of the two parties (or be incredibly rich).

They will need to find a constituency that likes their views (or tailor their views to the electorate).

They will need to make links within their chosen party and also be prepared to criticise their rivals within the party.

Once elected, they need to replenish their war chest. (They can bargain their political influence for money.)
If they are in the Administration, they must prepare for re-election. The voting public likes to hear short phrases which suggest the politicians are doing something. (Here in the UK, Tony Blair has said his priorities are “Education, education, education”. After 10 years in power, this policy has worked so well that leading politicians send their children to private schools. :rolleyes: )

Given that Bush has suffered a collapse in the polls, he needs to be seen doing something about Iraq.
I am confident that the majority of the US voters have no idea who al-Maliki is, what the difference between Sunni and Shia is, or even where Iraq is on a map. But Bush has told them he’s sending more troops. That they can understand.

4

It appears they believe that the key to overcoming the insurgent problem is denying them secure areas. The theory is that the American forces present in Baghdad will sweep through a neighbourhood and clear it of insurgents but then, because of the limited number of forces available, will have to leave the cleared neighbourhood and move to another area. Once the troops leave however, the insurgents can re-enter the neighborhood and re-establish themselves.

Bush’s stated plan is to greatly increase the number of troops in Baghdad. This would, in theory, allow the troops to clear neighbourhoods and then remain in the area to prevent the insurgents from returning. This will solve the insurgency problem (which Bush stated is centered in Baghdad) and bring some peace and stability to the city and country. This will also allow for the rebuilding of public services that have been disrupted by the fighting and the restoration of the economy.

Bush also feels that powers outside of Iraq are aiding the insurgents and the increased American presence will make more credible threats to retaliate against these outside powers if they continue this support.

The goal is that the Iraqi government will become stronger and more stable during this period of peace and prosperity that is being enforced by American troops and the insurgency will become weaker by losing popular and foreign support. Eventually, the balance will have shifted to the point where the Americans can be withdrawn without it causing an insurgent resurgence.

That’s the plan anyway. Whether all of its premises are true and its conclusions will work is less sure.

5

I am confident that Bush will not be re-elected. Don’t ask me how I know, let’s just call it a feeling.

6

LN, Good on 'ya for answering the post as opposed to just using it as an opportunity to take a pot shot (rightly or wrongly) at the Administration.

7

Agreed.

8

My name is Raguleader, and I support this message. :smiley:

The plan sounds solid enough in theory, depending on how well it’s executed, though it does depend on Iraq being able to pony up on it’s end of the deal, which they’ll presumably have an easier time doing if they’re not constantly dealing with attacks within their own capital.

9

That does make sense in terms of what was actually said. I do seriously wonder, though, if anyone can possibly actually believe it will happen. It simply won’t. All of the separate aspects that would have to come together in order for it to happen (Al-Maliki doing what he said he would, more troops making a difference, and so forth,) have repeatedly failed in the past. I would bet anything I have on this planet that this plan will fail. Given that, I wondered if there was some kind of unstated purpose, some other accomplishment that is being aimed at. But I honestly can’t guess what that could be.

10

Further let me put forward that it may be hoped that by increasing the numbers of American troops in country, a measurable lessening of insurgent activity may take place at least briefly. It is not an unknown response as they readjust to the change in tactic.

That lessening will give the administration a chance to say. “Well, we’ve been successful. Now we can pull out.”

As I remember, Nixon attempted something somewhat similar with Vietnam.

11

Bush’s “surge” tactic is simply to “pass the buck” onto someone else. Remember, the “surge” strategy will take several months to actually materialize itself. It takes this long because it is essentially just extending already active soldiers’ rotations. As well, surging pushes some units into action quicker and calls a few units up which should be resting at home. At the end of the surge you’ll have a bunch of exhausted divisions which need extensive rest and reconstitution. Not to mention, in 20 months or so, when the “surge” has reached it maximum sustainable duration, Bush leaves office.

Unless a Republican wins the election, Bush wins.

12

I don’t think Bush has an ulterior motive here. I think he honestly believes that invading Iraq was a good idea and things are going well and that no fundamental errors have been made. He feels that the answer to any minor problems that may exist is “more of the same”.

It goes without saying, I also think he’s very wrong in his beliefs.

13

I agree with all of that, except for saying that he doesn’t have an ulterior motive. The timing of this seems to point to the Democrat invasion into the legislative branch.

Having more troops in the danger area gives him more hostages to push through war legislation.

14

Yes, I know US Presidents can only serve two terms. Nevertheless once any US politician is first elected, he starts raising money for his next election.

In the case of a second-term President, his influence + support is needed for the next representative of his party.

Interestingly I was not just taking pot shots. (If I was, Guantanamo Bay would have been mentioned.)
Although I live in the UK, I do believe my post was accurate (please correct me if not).
My point was that Bush has to be seen doing something, whether it works or not.
Given that the conflict has been going on so long, are the extra troops really going to solve the problem?
Was this a recommendation of the Iraq Study group?

I appreciate that Little Nemo was giving an honest assessment. I would however point out problems with his analysis (my comments in italics):

It appears they believe that the key to overcoming the insurgent problem is denying them secure areas. The theory is that the American forces present in Baghdad will sweep through a neighbourhood and clear it of insurgents but then, because of the limited number of forces available, will have to leave the cleared neighbourhood and move to another area. Once the troops leave however, the insurgents can re-enter the neighborhood and re-establish themselves.

Like Northern Ireland, most of the insurgents live in the neighbourhood. What arev the US troops going to do - enter and search every house, warehouse and mosque?
In addition, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all have their own militias. Are the US troops going to attempt to disarm them?

Bush’s stated plan is to greatly increase the number of troops in Baghdad. This would, in theory, allow the troops to clear neighbourhoods and then remain in the area to prevent the insurgents from returning. This will solve the insurgency problem (which Bush stated is centered in Baghdad) and bring some peace and stability to the city and country. This will also allow for the rebuilding of public services that have been disrupted by the fighting and the restoration of the economy.

The insurgency problem is worst in Baghdad. It is however all over the country (British troops are dying in Basra, for example).

Bush also feels that powers outside of Iraq are aiding the insurgents and the increased American presence will make more credible threats to retaliate against these outside powers if they continue this support.

No doubt Iran and Syria are funding and supplying their allies. But do you really expect Bush to attack yet another country? What happened to the search for Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

The goal is that the Iraqi government will become stronger and more stable during this period of peace and prosperity that is being enforced by American troops and the insurgency will become weaker by losing popular and foreign support. Eventually, the balance will have shifted to the point where the Americans can be withdrawn without it causing an insurgent resurgence.

This would be great if it happened. However we are talking about a religious and tribal conflict where thousands have died over decades and there have been three wars.
Where is the peace and prosperity to come from? Again consider Northern Ireland, where there is currently peace but only after decades of violence, army patrols and negotiations. How come Iraq will suddenly change in a matter of months?
As for the insurgency, why would having extra US troops count against people who can be whipped into a religious frenzy. If one mosque of religious procession is bombed, how are the extra US troops to stop carnage? They don’t even speak the language!

15

I appreciate that Little Nemo was giving an honest assessment. I would however point out problems with his analysis (my comments in italics):

…

This would be great if it happened. However we are talking about a religious and tribal conflict where thousands have died over decades and there have been three wars.
Where is the peace and prosperity to come from? Again consider Northern Ireland, where there is currently peace but only after decades of violence, army patrols and negotiations. How come Iraq will suddenly change in a matter of months?
As for the insurgency, why would having extra US troops count against people who can be whipped into a religious frenzy. If one mosque of religious procession is bombed, how are the extra US troops to stop carnage? They don’t even speak the language!

16

Simply if he winds down the war now, it will be seen as a failure that started on his watch and ended on his watch, under an almost totally Repubican Congress–it will be 100% Bush’s war. If he can string it out so that we’re still engaged in the war in late 2008, then the next president can be spun to be the guy (or the gal) who cut back on troops JUST WHEN THEY WERE STARTING TO TURN THIS WAR AROUND. Bush’s whole meme is that the current problem is that he’s not being given carte blanche to run the war exactly as he likes, so this is holding him back from being able to win the war. Them nasty traitorous Democrats, them undermining generals, that whiny public, they make it very hard for a President to just go in there and win the war already.

17

No, it was definitely not. Nor was it the recommendation of Gen Abizaid, who was the top-ranking military commander in the Middle East until being very recently replaced. From what I’ve read, most Iraqis do not want it either. Even people who wanted more troops to start with are saying that now is too little, too late. That’s a big reason why I’ve seriously wondered what it is about this speech that just plain doesn’t make sense (forget opinions about how right or wrong the ideas are.) I can see some of the logic in pseudotriton’s post, but I’m not sure this is really what’s going on either, largely because things are going to go very wrong very very fast, while we’re still decidedly on Bush’s watch. If I had a million dollars lying around the house, trust me, I would bet it on that outcome. Little Nemo may the be the closest poster to the truth so far, but I’m still looking for other ideas!

18

Since I can’t edit posts, I’m double-posting to add this addendum:

These Iraqi officials say Mr. Maliki, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s setback in the Democratic sweep in November’s midterm elections, demanded that American troops be pulled back to the periphery of Baghdad and that the war in the capital, at least, be handed to Iraqi troops. The demand was part of a broader impatience among the ruling Shiites to be relieved from American oversight so as to be able to fight and govern according to the dictates of Shiite politics, not according to strictures from Washington.

So yep, al-Maliki did not want a troop buildup, especially not in Baghdad. I’m REALLY confused now.

19

In answer to the question “Do you really expect Bush to attack yet another country?” I’m just going to mention that the US military has been operating around southern Somalia in support of the Transitional Federal Government and the Ethiopian army lately. The 5th Fleet has been running coastal patrols to deny the Islamist Courts Union the use of the sea to retreat or resupply, and the Air Force recently started employing AC-130 gunships against some ICU targets near the Kenyan border, and I seem to recall reading that the Marines were helping the Kenyans patrol their border to keep the ICU forces from retreating into Kenya.

Actually, an increasing number of US troops DO speak the language, getting linguistic training at the Presidio in Monterey, California. Not a significant portion of the overall army, but it is an area they’re expanding in.