Slate's Bizbox
war stories: Military analysis.

Deceptive or Delusional?Bush's appalling Iraq speech.

By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007, at 11:42 PM ET

President Bush's TV address tonight was the worst speech he's ever given on the war in Iraq, and that's saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.

The biggest fiction was that because of the "success" of the surge, we can reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15 by next July. Gen. David Petraeus has recommended this step, and President George W. Bush will order it so.

Let's be clear one more time about this claim: The surge of five extra combat brigades (bringing the total from 15 to 20) started in January. Their 15-month tours of duty will begin to expire next April. The Army and Marines have no combat units ready to replace them. The service chiefs refuse to extend the tours any further. The president refuses to mobilize the reserves any further. And so, the surge will be over by next July. This has been understood from the outset. It is the result of simple arithmetic, not of anyone's decision, much less some putative success.

It is true that Bush is ordering the withdrawal of 5,700 of those troops—one Army brigade and a Marine expeditionary unit—before Christmas, a few months earlier than they need to go home. This is clearly in response to a request by Sen. John Warner, the ranking Republican on the armed services committee. The Republicans need political cover on the war; they need to show they're bringing some troops home soon; they hope that doing so will defuse the war as an election issue. Bush hopes this will be enough to keep them on his side—and limit the support for Democrats' proposals of speedier withdrawals.

But by acceding to this political compromise—and by selling the larger withdrawal as a decision instead of as an inescapable fact of life—Bush undermined his case that the fight for Iraq is the central fight for civilization. If this claim is true, why pull any troops out earlier than necessary?

His showcase example of success was the recent alliance between U.S. troops and Sunni insurgents to join forces against jihadist terrorists in Anbar province (an alliance, by the way, that was formed before the surge). Yet even so, the president said in tonight's speech, "In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly." Again, under the president's own assumptions, what's the substantive case for letting any troops leave?

The speech was rife with evasion and fantasy from the outset.

"In Iraq," he declared, "an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival." This sounded as if some well-established government were under attack from an outside force. In fact, a U.S.-installed regime is racked with divisiveness as a result of sectarian clashes within its own society. That is a very different thing. As Gen. Petraeus has said many times, there is only so much U.S. military force can accomplish under such circumstances.

Back to the speech: "Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home." Even if it were true that the movement called al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is one and the same with the larger al-Qaida organization (a point that the U.S. intelligence community disputes), AQM accounts for only 5 percent of the attacks inside Iraq—some of the deadliest 5 percent, but it is misleading to suggest that they are the biggest obstacle to Iraqi unity, much less the greatest threat to regional peace.

The rationale for the surge was to improve security in Baghdad and thus give Iraq's national political leaders the "breathing room" to reconcile their differences, pass key legislation, and form a unified government. The recent debates over conflicting charts and statistics—some showing a decline in civilian deaths and sectarian attacks, others showing an increase—are beside the point. The point is whether life in Baghdad has improved enough to allow for political progress on a national level. As Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker conceded several times in congressional hearings this week, no such progress has been made.

President Bush tonight tried to suggest otherwise. He correctly outlined the premise of the surge strategy: "For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and help Iraqi forces to maintain it."

But then he said: "As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home." (Italics added.) Does he really think, whatever the advances toward these goals, that we have reached "success in meeting these objectives"?

As he himself admitted, those goals haven't yet been achieved in Anbar, much less in Baghdad, much less in national Iraqi politics. He could not evade today's news—that Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, leader of the Sunni tribes' revolt against al-Qaida in Anbar province, has been assassinated.

He admitted that the Iraqi government "has not met its own legislative benchmarks" of success. But he then returned once more to the promise of Anbar and proclaimed, "As local politics change, so will national politics." This adage isn't nearly always true in the United States. It certainly isn't true in a country like Iraq, which is fissuring into at least three separate countries.

The president then turned to long-term U.S. policy in Iraq, and his attempts at assurance were anything but.

He cited Gen. Petraeus' testimony recommending not only a reduction in troops but a gradual change in their mission. "Over time," Bush said, "our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces."

However, the chart that Gen. Petraeus presented in this part of his testimony gave no dates—not even a projected range of dates—for when this shift in mission would take place. Many Democrats, some Republicans, and a fairly large number of Army and Marine generals would like to see this shift begin now. That is the debate that Congress will be taking up. Bush's speech is an evasion.

Then Bush muddied the waters further. On the one hand, he has a "vision for a reduced American presence" in Iraq. On the other hand, he foresees a need for "U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency," and he talked about building "an enduring relationship" between the United States and Iraq.

What is this enduring relationship? What does it require, in the way of troops, bases, and other resources? What other countries or international agencies will be involved? Do the relationship's elements include stepped-up diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors? None of these vital questions was broached, much less answered.

Finally, he presented a series of pleas under the guise of compromise.

He asked the Congress to "come together" and support Gen. Petraeus' recommendations on troop cuts—not seeming to recognize that a mere return to pre-surge levels (which will be inevitable by next summer), with no change in direction, is no basis for a sustained consensus.

He asked "the Iraqi people" to "demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation"—not seeming to recognize that "the Iraqi people" is a tenuous concept and that many of Iraq's Shiites, Sunni Arabs, and Kurds themselves have very different, possibly irreconcilable, demands about their futures.

Oddly, he thanked "the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq." At the peak of the "coalition," back in the fall of 2004, only 31 countries besides the United States had any troops in Iraq. They amounted to 24,000—fewer than one-fifth of America's numbers—and one-third of those were contributed by Britain. Now, according to the most recent official report (dated Aug. 30, 2007), just 25 countries have troops there; they number fewer than 12,000 (an average of fewer than 500 per nation), and more and more, including Britain, are leaving every month.

The question could be asked throughout the speech, but particularly at that point: In what world is the president of the United States living?

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and the author of Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. He can be reached at .
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

Kaplan joins the liberal echo chamber talking about the necessity of pulling out troops as if it were written in stone. Well, why couldn't he have asked for an increase in recruiting levels in order to support a larger effort in Iraq? There is no absolute rule limiting the size of the armed forces. If the hypothetical President Hillary Clinton became convinced that Iran was on a kamikaze mission to nuke the US when they had the capability, I'd hope she'd ask for and get troop levels that would change the regime in Iran regardless of what was going on in Iraq.

Kaplan accuses Bush of compromising his ideas that the struggle with jihadists in Iraq is central. Very interesting from a liberal who wants us to get out now. If it is central, Bush has to adhere to an effort that has the best chance of success. That includes political viability. Is he more loyal to his view by giving some ground and bettering the chances of keeping a good effort going? Or standing firm and giving more fuel to those who want to exit now? Surely anyone must agree that putting pressure on Iraqi politicians by indicating an intent to withdraw is an argument with merit; the issue is how soon. Critics seem to think they can come together quickly while Bush is more cautious.

Finally Kaplan jumps on an absolutely vacuous hobby horse, accusing Bush of not laying out a detailed prophetic timetable for future events. Ignoring the fact that chaotic situations like Iraq make such prophecy a silly task, so predicting tends to tie his hands in dealing with the politicians. The important thing is that he has underlined and emphasized a key point: the troops are going to start coming home.

Ironically, the critics have clouded this key point by raising the specious idea that higher troop levels are in principle unsupportable.

--Breaker

(To reply, click here.)

The overall strategy of this administration has been brilliant. Never has an administration been so adept at controlling the content of debate as this one - they use the red herring like a rapier.

And here we go again - Mr. Kaplan going over Bush's latest round of spun smoke, refuting his points one by one. Fred, you are the part of this equation that makes me despair, because I'm fairly confident that you, at least, are rational. It's your rationality, and the rationality of people like you, that Bush and co. have been exploiting since they were out of the gate.

We live in a world of well-spoken, intelligent people, and in the realm of political debate, the best-spoken tend to be liberal. How is a conservative to counter this? How, when one is attempting to appeal to a group who is resisting new ideas, can one fend off those irritatingly persuasive ideas?

Rush Limbaugh uses repetition, mockery and volume. Bush and company use misinformation. They use misinformation to spin a glamour, because by laying their "facts" and "arguments" out, they are defining the universe in which discussion will take place. And the response from our intellectual liberals? They follow them around, refuting point after point, while Bush and Co. continue to gleefully spin their webs of distraction and distortion.

One does not counter lies by refutation alone, because you will always be a step or two behind the committed liar. One counters lies by telling the truth - not by mere refutation, but by asserting reality as you see it.

Fred, being right is damn small consolation when you're on the fast-track to disaster. What this country needs is a new discourse. What Bush can always counter with is this quagmire in Iraq, and while your eyes are on the monte-dealer, his accomplice is lifting your wallet. If for no other reason, we should get out of that country because we will do nothing good (in a substantial way) in this one, as long as we're there.

--GeneralDisarray

(To reply, click here.)

I note that today Kaplan and the Washington Post both want to decry the assassination of Sheikh Abdul Sittar Bezea al-Rishawi. Now that he's dead, he is an important man, the lost key to Bush's success in Iraq. While alive however, the guy was invisible unless you read independent reporters or soldier blogs while he worked with us to move key Sunni leaders away from the other side. But his new-found post-mortem importance is the posture of the moment and thus requires a kneejerk mention by deep-thinkers like Kaplan.

Those of us who read beyond the New York Times and Daily Kos knew that Anbar started changing last spring. Why Bush, Casey, Sanchez et al. took so long to adapt to the success crafted by more junior men is disappointing but my disappointment does not make me a policy expert as it magically does for Mr. Kaplan.

He now opines that removing troops is a bad thing, forced upon Bush and unrelated to his general's recommendations or the situation in Iraq. However, had Harry Reid put this exact outcome in a bill and tried to mandate it it would have been seen as progress, a step in the right direction. Nobody surfs the lefty zeitgeist like our man Kaplan.

The notion that Fred Kaplan is more maturely grounded in reality than George Bush and his senior military advisors is patently silly. But how imaginative and of him to use the Bush-is-on-another-planet metaphor because that's like totally original. No wonder Slate pays him the big bucks.

--LazyPatriot

(To reply, click here.)

(9/15)

Washington Post