From Bush's press conference today 10/25/06:
Over the past three years I have often addressed the American people to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging ... Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters.
Yes, not finding those WMDs was "not encouraging". Especially since that was the main justification for the war.
Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
The obvious: Iraq was not a "terrorist haven" under Saddam's Baathist dictatorship. The chaos brought by Bush's invasion has created at least the possibility that it would become such. Although it's more likely that the current civil war will continue for years, which would provide training to some jihadists siding with the Sunnis. But massive civil war isn't the most likely conditions for terrorists to create a "haven" for themselves.
We learned some key lessons from that early phase in the war. We saw how quickly al Qaeda and other extremist groups would come to Iraq to fight and try to drive us out. We overestimated the capability of the civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people. We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the phase of advancing coalition forces.
In other words, the Cheney-Bush team screwed up about everything they could screw up.
Yet the persistent attacks, particularly last February's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of Shia Islam's most holy shrines, eventually resulted in sectarian reprisals. The cycle of violence, in which al Qaeda insurgents attacked Shia civilians and Shia death squads retaliated against Sunnis, has sharply increased in recent months, particularly in Baghdad.
Pretty much everyone but Republican fantasists regard Al Qaeda as a marginal participant in the Iraqi insurgency and civil war. Although its possible that Bush's formulation here is meant to not overtly blame Iraqi Sunnis in order to facilitate some negotiating channel with the Sunni resistance. Maybe. Don't count on it.
As the enemy shifts tactics, we are shifting our tactics, as well. Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions. Our mission is to help the elected government in Iraq defeat common enemies, to bring peace and stability to Iraq, and make our nation more secure. Our goals are unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals.
The Iraqi government is essentially the Shi'a militias invested with state power. Or, more accurately, wearing police and army uniforms. Backing the Iraqi government is essentially the same as backing the Shi'a in their civil war against the Sunnis.
After some initial successes, our operations to secure Baghdad have encountered greater resistance. Some of the Iraqi security forces have performed below expectations. Many have performed well and are fighting bravely in some of Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods. Once again, American troops are performing superbly under very difficult conditions. Together, with the Iraqis, they've conducted hundreds of missions throughout Baghdad. They've rounded up or killed key insurgents and death squad leaders.
While I have no doubt that American troops perform much better than the Shi'a militias in Iraqi army uniforms, there is the kernal of a future alibi here: we (the Americans) did pretty much everything fine, but the Iraqis were too worthless to help us like we needed.
A military solution alone will not stop violence. In the end, the Iraqi people and their government will have to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve these problems. So, in addition to refining our military tactics to defeat the enemy, we're also working to help the Iraqi government achieve a political solution that brings together Shia and Sunnis and Kurds and other ethnic and religious groups.
He laid out some specifics, obviously meant to kick the can a little farther down the road. But with all the rumors over the last few weeks, it's hard not to see an implied coup threat in this.
This young government has to solve a host of problems created by decades of tyrannical rule. And they have to do it in the midst of raging conflict, against extremists from outside and inside the country who are doing everything they can to stop this government from succeeding.
Any serious thought on the American administration's part prior to invading Iraq about what they were doing would have given them the realization that, no, the US wasn't going to be able to invade, oust Saddam, stick a friendly regime in power, establish permanent US bases for 40,000 or so troops, and send the rest to invade somebody else.
In the current administration lingo, "extremists" are the ones we are against, "moderates" are the ones we support.
We're pressing Iraq's leaders to take bold measures to save their country. We're making it clear that America's patient [sic] is not unlimited. ... The way to succeed in Iraq is to help Iraq's government grow in strength and assume more control over its country as quickly as possible.
Could be a coup threat. Sounds a lot like it to me.
I know the American people understand the stakes in Iraq. They want to win. They will support the war as long as they see a path to victory. Americans can have confidence that we will prevail because thousands of smart, dedicated military and civilian personnel are risking their lives and are working around the clock to ensure our success. A distinguished independent panel of Republicans and Democrats, led by former Secretary of State Jim Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, is taking a fresh look at the situation in Iraq and will make recommendations to help achieve our goals. I welcome all these efforts. My administration will carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory.
That Secret Plan To End The War is coming after the election!
It's my responsibility to provide the American people with a candid assessment on the way forward.
Yes, but most of us long since gave up hope that we would get that from you.
If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia.
Okay, an Iraq that will spend years in a three-way civil war among Sunnis, Shi'a Arabs and Kurds, with likely interventions by neighboring countries, with an oil industry that's already been devastated by years of neglect and now 3 1/2 years of war, is going to send massive armies sweeping through all the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. The words of an old Steve Earle song come to mind: "It's called snake oil, y'all ..."
We must not look at every success of the enemy as a mistake on our part, cause for an investigation, or a reason to call for our troops to come home. We must not fall prey to the sophisticated propaganda by the enemy, who is trying to undermine our confidence and make us believe that our presence in Iraq is the cause of all its problems.
The ghost of Spiro Agnew lives on. If you disagree with Dear Leader Bush's policies, you're collaborating with the Islamunists!
If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow. I met too many wives and husbands who have lost their partners in life, too many children who won't ever see their mom and dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved ones in harm's way to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.
Lots of people have died, so we have to keep the killing and dying going to justify the previous deaths, which will give us more deaths for which we have to keep on going, which will ... This is the same logic that opposing nations applied during the First World War, turning a war that was already a bloody stalemate a few months after it began into years of useless, massive slaughter.
Every American can take pride in our troops, and the vital work they are doing to protect us.
And every American over the age of, oh, 14 or so can distinguish between the contributions of individual soldiers and the larger policies of the war. Except, it seems, Republicans who equate "supporting the troops" to "cheering for Bush's policies". Prolonging American participation in the Iraq War is not protecting Americans or American interests.
I'm confident this generation will answer that call and defeat an ideology that is bent on destroying America and all that we stand for.
Yes, the Islamofasconist ideology, we know.
Q Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World War II for the United States. And as you mentioned, October was the deadliest month for American forces this year -- in a year. Do you think we're winning, and why?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, this is a different kind of war than a war against the fascists in World War II. We were facing a nation state -- two nation states -- three nation states in World War II. We were able to find an enemy by locating its ships, or aircraft, or soldiers on the ground. This is a war against extremists and radicals who kill innocent people to achieve political objectives. It has a multiple of fronts.
Are we giving up the Second World War identifications along with the "stay the course" slogan? Who will break the news to Victor Davis Hanson, undisputed champion of the hack Second World War analogies.
Afghanistan was a front in this war against the terrorists. Iraq is now the central front in the war against the terrorists.
Should Dick Cheney tell Bush that the war in Afghanistan is still going on?
Defeat will only come if the United States becomes isolationist and refuses to, one, protect ourselves, and, two, help those who desire to become - to live in a moderate, peaceful world. And it's a hard struggle, no question about it. And it's a different struggle.
Defeat is probably a lot closer than that, Dear Leader.
Q Are we winning?
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely, we're winning. Al Qaeda is on the run. As a matter of fact, the mastermind, or the people who they think is the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks is in our custody. We've now got a procedure for this person to go on trial, to be held for his account. Most of al Qaeda that planned the attacks on September the 11th have been brought to justice.
Extremists have now played their hand; the world can clearly see their ambitions. You know, when a Palestinian state began to show progress, extremists attacked Israel to stop the advance of a Palestinian state. They can't stand democracies. Extremists and radicals want to undermine fragile democracy because it's a defeat for their way of life, their ideology.
People now understand the stakes. We're winning, and we will win, unless we leave before the job is done. And the crucial battle right now is Iraq. And as I said in my statement, I understand how tough it is, really tough. It's tough for a reason; because people understand the stakes of success in Iraq. And my point to the American people is, is that we're constantly adjusting our tactics to achieve victory.
Al Qaida, Palesinians, Iraqis. If you've seen one Islamunists, you've seen them all. Or so it seems to the President.
I will send more troops to Iraq if General Casey says, I need more troops in Iraq to achieve victory. And that's the way I've been running this war. I have great faith in General Casey. I have great faith in Ambassador Khalilzad. I trust our commanders on the ground to give the best advice about how to achieve victory. I want to remind you, victory is a government that can sustain itself, govern itself - a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, and serves as an ally in the war on terror - which stands in stark contrast to a government that would be chaotic, that would be a safe haven for the enemy to launch attacks on us. ...
It is - and so this is a war where I say to our generals, do you have what it takes to win.
Democracy is conspicuously missing from that definition of "victory", I notice. We all know that the generals' formal requests to Bush are a cynical game to allow him to be able to say this. But let's take it at face value. That means that our infallible generals are getting everything they say they need to win the Iraq War. Something to remember when they later claim none of the loss was the military's fault, it was all the civilians that tied the military's hands, yadda, yadda.
But in the real world, should a President be saying stuff like this? Should he even pretend to be the automatic provider of everything the generals say they need? Not in my mind. He's the guy in charge, it's ultimately his responsibility to do the right thing, no matter whose advice he's following. Later he returns to the theme:
I meet with our - or talk to our generals all the time. And the security situation looked like at that point in time that beginning next year, we could reduce our troop presence. That's what we felt - until the conditions on the ground changed. And when they changed, our generals changed their attitude. And when their attitude changed, my attitude changed.
Look, I want to get our troops home as fast as we can. But I do not want to leave before we achieve victory. And the best way to do that is to make sure we have a strategy that works, tactics that adjust to the enemy, and commanders that feel confident making recommendations to the Secretary and to the Commander-in-Chief. And that's how that happened. In other words, they're saying it looks like things are positive, things are stepping up. The security situation is -- looks like it could be this way. And then when it change, we changed. And that's important for the American people to know, that we're constantly changing tactics to meet the situation on the ground.
But I believe the following is new. Bush is giving us some specific, quantifiable goals for the needed levels of Iraqi security forces, and distinguishing between soldiers and police:
And what the General was saying yesterday is that there is a three-step process to enable the Iraqi forces to be able to help this government bring security. One was to train and equip. The goal is 325,000 troops; 137,000 military and the balance, police. ...
The key is that our commanders feel that there - they have got enough flexibility to design the program to meet the conditions on the ground. You know, last spring, I thought for a period of time we'd be able to reduce our troop presence early next year. That's what I felt. But because we didn't have a fixed timetable, and because General Casey and General Abizaid and the other generals there understand that the way we're running this war is to give them flexibility, have the confidence necessary to come and make the right recommendations here in Washington, D.C., they decided that that wasn't going to happen. And so what he was describing to you was the way forward to make sure that the Iraqis are fully prepared to defend themselves.
Bookmark this one in your minds. The generals are calling the shots. Bush gives them everything they need to win. He lets them do whatever they want to win. The Rush Limbaughs of the world will relatively soon be telling a different story.
Q What about the 12 to 18 month estimate [on US troop drawdowns]?
THE PRESIDENT: It's a condition, a base estimate. And that's important for the American people to know. This notion about, you know, fixed timetable of withdrawal, in my judgment, is a - means defeat. You can't leave until the job is done. Our mission is to get the job done as quickly as possible. ...
That is substantially different, David, from people saying, we want a time certain to get out of Iraq. As a matter of fact, the benchmarks will make it more likely we win. Withdrawing on an artificial timetable means we lose.
This may have been a kind of Freudian slip. For Bush, a fixed withdrawal timetable means Defeat.
Let me finish. I view that this is a struggle between radicals and extremists who are trying to prevent there to be a democracy, for a variety of reasons. And it's in our interest that the forces of moderation prevail in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. A defeat there - in other words, if we were to withdraw before the job is done, it would embolden extremists. They would say, you know, we were right about America in the first place, that America did not have the will necessary to do the hard work. That's precisely what Osama bin Laden has said, for example. A defeat there would make it easier for people to be able to recruit extremists and kids, to be able to use their tactics to destroy innocent life. A defeat there would dispirit people throughout the Middle East who wonder whether America is genuine in our commitment to moderation and democracy.
I wonder how much damage Bush is willing to see the US Army sustain in Iraq before he can find a different way to look at this than a frat-boy testosterone contest. Credibility is certainly a factor to consider. But, at this point, how could the United States wind up with less credibility in the Middle East?
Q What if there is a civil war?
THE PRESIDENT: You're asking me hypotheticals. Our job is to make sure there's not one, see. You been around here five-and-a-half years, you know I won't answer hypotheticals. Occasionally slip up, but --
No, it's not hypothetical, unfortunately. See Is There a "Civil War" in Iraq? by Anthony Cordesman 10/16/06.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. You talk about the U.S. government and the Iraqi government working closely together on benchmarks. I'm wondering, sir, why was Prime Minister Maliki not at the news conference yesterday with General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad? Would that not have sent a strong message about there being a very close level of cooperation between the two governments?
THE PRESIDENT: Elaine, I have no idea why he wasn't there.
Q Was he invited, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I'm not the scheduler of news conferences. I do know they work very closely together, and they've got a very close working relationship, and that's important.
Maliki can't be feeling entirely good about the near future right now.
There's a lot of people still furiousabout what happened to them during Saddam Hussein's period. You can imagine that. What happens if your brother or sister had been assassinated by Saddam Hussein and his political party? You'd be -- you wouldn't be happy about it. Reconciliation is difficult in a society that had been divided and tortured by a tyrant.
Is Bush just entirely incapable of self-reflection?
And Prime Minister Maliki has got the difficult job of reconciling these grievances, and different political parties on top of that, plus dealing with violence. I've talked to him a lot. I like his spirit, I like his attitude. He's confident we can achieve the mission. He's not - he's realistic about how difficult it is in Iraq.
This sounds an awful lot like "Maliki's doing a heckuva job".
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the United States want to maintain permanent bases in Iraq? And I would follow that by asking, are you willing to renounce a claim on permanent bases in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Jim, any decisions about permanency in Iraq will be made by the Iraqi government. And, frankly, it's not in much of a position to be thinking about what the world is going to look like five or 10 years from now. They are working to make sure that we succeed in the short-term. And they need our help. And that's where our focus is.
Permanent bases have always been part of the Cheney-Bush goal in Iraq. It's a key reason why they won't consider a phased withdrawal.
You know, it's interesting, if you - I'm sure people who watch your TV screens think the entire country is embroiled in sectarian conflict and that there's constant killing everywhere in Iraq. Well, if you listened to General Casey yesterday, 90 percent of the action takes place in five of the 18 provinces. And around Baghdad, it's limited to a 30-mile area. And the reason I bring that up is that while it seems to our American citizens that nothing normal is taking place - and I can understand why, it's a brutal environment there, particularly that which is on our TV screens - that there is farmers farming, there are small businesses growing, there's a currency that's relatively stable, there's an entrepreneurial class, there's commerce. General Abizaid was describing to me what it was like to go to Baghdad markets.
I'm glad to hear that there is farmers farming in Iraq. Bush apparently believes in Rummy's magic, where with the right incantations you can just eliminate the concept of civil war from human history. Once again, see Is There a "Civil War" in Iraq? by Anthony Cordesman 10/16/06.
But if things are this great, why are we drawing down the American troops instead of sending more there?
The security of this country - and look, I understand here in Washington, some people say we're not at war. I know that. They're just wrong in my opinion.
What the [Cheney]? Who exactly says we're not at war?
At least he ended up on a humorous note:
If any person in any party fails to live up to high standards, they ought to be held to account, Richard. It's important for there to be trust in the halls of Congress and in the White House, and throughout government. People got to trust elected leaders in order for democracy to work to its fullest extent. And I fully expect people to be held to account if there's wrongdoing, just like I expect corporate executives to be held to account for wrongdoing; just like I expect people throughout our society to be held to account for wrongdoing.
People do have to take responsibility for the decisions they make in life. I take responsibility for the decisions I make. I also understand that those of us in positions of responsibility have the duty to bring honor to the offices we hold. People don't have to agree with somebody's opinion, there's all kinds of opinions here. But in order to make this country work, and to make democracy succeed, there's got to be high standards, and people must be held to account to achieve those standards.
I ask again, does this man have any capacity for self-reflection?
No comments:
Post a Comment