My question is to some extent a GQ, but given the topic…
What exactly did Bush stated in his speech? I’m under the impression that he said essentially nothing apart from some vague meaningless generalities. Am I right? Did he actually announce some kind of plan? If so, what is “the plan”?
Read all about it. Warning: PDF
The Plan is victory. In a very real sense, victory is the plan. Of course, without victory, the plan is useless, because victory is crucial to the plan…
GeeDub and his advisors are stuck in a fugue-state. They have chosen to believe that thier only failing is in not communicating thier position with the American people, and that if the people are clearly cognizant of that position, they will agree wholeheartedly and rally around The Leader in near unanimous approval.
Hence, the tremulous buildups, the pins and needles anticipation…here it comes! a really, really important speech! Gonna be big! Gonna be a blockbuster! And it lands with a noise that combines a thud! and a splat! Whereupon, they gather to consider the situation, and conclude that thier only failing is in not communicating the importance of the issue with the American people, what is needed is for GeeDub to present his views in a direct, forceful manner which emphasizes his leadership and resolve. Perhaps a major speech…
And you came to this conclusion after reading the link I gave, right? :rolleyes:
One might argue that execution of the plan is poor, but I think the plan has been pretty clear from the beginning: Build democratic political institutions, develop a self-sufficient Iraqi defense force, and get the economy functioning. The first part is coming along pretty well. The second part was very slow to get started, but is finally getting some traction, and the third part has a long ways to go.
I supsect that the “pentagon rumors” of troop reductions throughout 2006 are pretty much what the administration is planning-- get our troop strength down to about 100k by the end of next year. Support for the war is more a function of how many of our soliders are being killed over there. I expect that as we finally do begin to withdraw some troops next year, that support will begin to creep up again.
No, actually, I came to this conclusion months ago. I have little doubt that you have read every word, and I have nought but entire trust in your judgement.
Please bring forward those parts that strike you as bold new initiatives. Five or six will do for now, no reason to strain.
I wait with bated breath.
I don’t see anything new here- exactly what is the difference between this and what Bush has said all along? And if it’s what he’s said before, why was it classified before? I confess to speed reading it, but if there was new information there it certainly went under my radar. Someone help us out and explain what’s new, please.
I’ve read only excepts of the speech, and I’ve only had time to skim the briefing paper that accompanied it, but it seems pretty clear that the broad outlines as to how the US presence may evolve were laid out long ago and there will be no significant changes before the end of Mr. Bush’s second term.
Mr. Bush apparently lashed out at people making fun of the ‘stay the course’ strategy, but staying the course is really the only appropriate term. To wit, although it’s more hinted than spelled out explicitly, it looks like there will be a gradual drawdown of troops (between 30-50,000) in '06, maybe a similar number in '07, but almost certainly a more or less permanent presence of, say, 30-60,000 troops and support staff. The drawdown will be mostly (IMO) due to the simple inability of the US to maintain the current force level with a volunteer military.
No matter what happens, it’s my opinion, worhtless as that may be, that a significant US military presence in Iraq is a given for at least the next five years.
All this presumes the following:
a) the next dministration will not be able politically to make instant changes to the established policy, even if it wishes to
b) no outbreak of civil war in Iraq within the next 3-5 years
c) no significant upward changes in the ability of anti-US elements in Iraq to carry out operations against the occupying forces
d) An elected Iraqi government demands a rapid withdrawal of foreign troops.
If any of the above occur, particularly b) or c), all bets are off.
Sorry, d) should read:
An elected Iraqi government does not demand a rapid withdrawal of foreign troops.
BobLibDem hit it right on the head. The President clearly stated in his speech that this plan isn’t new, it’s the same thing that been done before, and the only difference is that it’s “declassified.” God knows why anything in there should have been classified to begin with.
That strategy paper is literally a 38-page expansion on the phrase, “stay the course.”
I note a lack of objective milestones, metrics, and accountability checks in that plan.
Sounds like a PR puff-piece to me.
On that second part - the Iraqi defence force. I think you’d have to say it isn’t going well at all. As I’ve said in another thread, it’s true that there might be more “Iraqi units” in action now than at this time last year. The problem is that these units are effectively religious- / ethnically-based militias. This makes conflict, up to the level of a civil war, more rather than less likely.
From a summary of a Wall Street Journal article (link to the summary, link to the article, subscription required):
Those are aspirations, not plans. Just repeating the aspirations over and over, as the document you linked to does, will do nothing to bring them about. It’s a propaganda document, nothing more – not a dispassionate look at our actual chances of success, nor an exhamination of our failures so far.
Reading between the lines, I get the sense that there will definitely be an American withdrawal in 2006. And of course we’ll declare victory. Don’t we always? As soon as the troops come home, everyone will forget about Iraq, and when it descends into chaos, it’ll merit nothing more than an indifferent shrug from the American public.
If it was that easy, it would have happened already. No, this isn’t Vietnam, the US cannot afford to leave Iraq in chaos. Oil comes from thereabouts. It’s a flytrap.
I have no idea why it would’ve been classified, except that perhaps some of the military details might have needed to be. But, why is there surprise that Bush isn’t offering a “new” plan? Was he ever saying he was going to offer something new? No, he’s said all along that he intends to spend more time communicating the plan and the successes that have been achieved.
I don’t see how anyone can argue that the political instutions put in place are a failure. They may not be perfect, but all the key milestones have been met, and there is a functioning government in place.
We won’t know how successful the Iraqi defense force is until we start withdrawing troops. That will happen next year. Claims that Iraq will “descend into chaos” (Sal’s words, not Bob’s) are nothing more than unsupported opinions. He is **looking **for failure, and so of course he’s going to find it.
Bush Seeks to Reassure Nation on Iraq
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Yipes. Yeah, that worked real well in Iran…
I don’t see what point you’re trying to make.
Yes, prudence says that its premature to call something a failure while something is still developing. But the Iraqi Interior Ministry surely must be given a failing mark on its mid-term exam for running secret torture rooms for political opponents.
Who do they think they are, the CIA?
Here’s the issue – there’s the perception among the American people that the current plan isn’t working. Hence the feeling there needs to be a “new” plan. The truth is, the fact Bush has to get up and make a big speech, and put out a 30-odd page “Plan for Victory” is itself evidence of our failure in Iraq. If our progress there was self-evident, there would be no need for Bush to explain the plan – the same plan – yet again. It’s going on three years now, and we’re just treading water. (Expensively, I might add.)
An opinion, to be sure, but unsupported? Is there anything in the complexion of that country to make you think stability will magically appear? When, by all accounts, the sectarian hatreds are increasing, rather than decreasing? I’m not looking for failure, I’m finding failure.
Well… I was assuming that he would maybe not announce something really new, but would at least outline what he intends to do in practice, when, how, etc… in the coming months or years.
So, I gather that I wasn’t mistaken. He actually didn’t announce anything new nor how he expects to achieve his goals? IOW, I can safely assume that this speech was just noise?