It was alright, lots of nice rhetoric, but as always with Bush not alot of details. Of course as a blogging-type person I crave details, and perhaps Joe Sixpack doesn't really need them. Still both I and Joe can trust that our military obviously plans and sets benchmarks for accomplishing the mission.

I certainly don't agree with the reaction of the NYT to the speech. I don't see by what reasonable standard they can claim that the administration has had "terrible planning" and "inept conduct of the war". Further, unlike the Times, I believe it is clearly true that Iraq is winnable. And I think anyone who, in spirit and in deed, supports the troops would think this as well. As such my donation to the families of fallen Special Forces is on way.

I didn't see the speech last night, but I think a very strong case can be made that the administration did a horrible job of planning for the post-war period. Having said that, I am amazed that we are still in a position to have a very positive outcome in Iraq. I truly did not think that at the time the war started that we would even be able to bring Iraq this far in terms of a stable and relatively democratic government. I really did think that in the post-war period, a widespread civil war would break out between the three distinct ethnic/religious groups there. I am happy to have been wrong in that regard, and despite the ongoing violence and despite the many screw ups along the way, I really do think that there is a decent chance of success in Iraq. And by success, I mean a stable, multi-ethnic Iraq that is reasonably democratic.

The problem with Bush's rhetoric on this issue is that it combines what is clearly good thinking with what is clearly just silly. When he says that it would be a mistake to give a timetable for a pullout of troops because that would lead the insurgents to plan for the moment we leave, he is undoubtedly right - and those who are clamoring for a withdrawal date are being ridiculous. But when he makes arguments like "be happy we're fighting the terrorists there instead of here", an intelligent person can only roll their eyes at such absurdity. But as I've always said, it's a mistake to confuse the marketing campaign for a war with the actual reality of it.

I thought his speech was just another round of "Listen, man - What part of 'Democracy Freedom Stay the Course Terror Terror' don't you understand?"

I thought this was the valuable part of the NYTimes editorial:

"We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal - beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.
. . .
No one wants a disaster in Iraq, and Mr. Bush's critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris, its terrible planning and its inept conduct of the war in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here. The president, who is going to be in office for another three and a half years, cannot continue to obsess about self-justification and the need to color Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it."

"Nor do we expect the New York Times to apologize for its part in reporting and not investigating the misinformation which led us to war"

Okay, I'm almost sold on the idea that there should not be a timetable. Can we at least agree on milestones--of undefined date--after which it will be okay to declare that our work is done?

This would give everyone who was serious about stabilizing Iraq--whether American or Iraqi--an incentive to achieve these milestones, because it would mean that the U.S. troops would get to leave sooner.

Milestones of the sort I imagine could include perhaps so many months of uninterrupted electricity in the capital, oil exports rising to a given level, unemployment falling below a given level, violence diminishing substantially, and so forth. Until these goals are clearly defined, then like it or not, we are going to look like an invasion force to many Iraqis--and our own soldiers will be demoralized by having few well-defined goals to work for.

But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.

I didn't hear the President say a single word about justifying the invasion / ouster of Hussein. What I heard was him explaining that to leave the job unfinished in Iraq would be to give al-Qaeda a base of operations just like they had in Afghanistan before 9/11. That seems indisputable to me.

We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal

Huh? It seemed pretty obvious to me. Victory (in Iraq) is when the new democratic Iraqi government is fully established and Iraqi forces can defend their own country. It will be more of an evolutionary victory than a revolutionary one, but still a clear goal. And we're getting there by training the Iraqi forces, going on join missions, etc.

I think we're just marking time until the current administration leaves. I'm not sure there is any way to unshit the bed at this point no matter who is in there, but with this administration at the helm, I just don't think we have the tools necessary to accomplish anything good.

I speak of the Bush administration as a unified "they". Of course, with any organization, it's possible for individual members to get things wrong, and this does not necessarily reflect poorly on the rest of the organization. If people were getting fired for being horribly, horribly wrong, then we might have some reason to think that, despite being wrong in the past, the organization might get more and more things right as it weeded out its incompetent members. But, that's not happening.

Personally, I think it's time for the Congress to take charge. Ideally, we'd like a competent executive, since a commander-in-chief has many advantages in conducting a war. But, since that doesn't seem to be available, I think maybe our next best option would be for Congress to form some kind of joint committee made up of all of its veterans to oversee the war as best it could in consultation with the military.

I don't know. This pooch has been screwed so badly, there don't seem to be any good options.

"I didn't hear the President say a single word about justifying the invasion / ouster of Hussein. What I heard was him explaining that to leave the job unfinished in Iraq would be to give al-Qaeda a base of operations just like they had in Afghanistan before 9/11. That seems indisputable to me."

The speech was artfully written in that respect. This passage, in particular:

The troops here [Fort Bragg] and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.

The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent.

To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill: in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere.

The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent and, with a few hard blows, they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken.

After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.

Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania.

There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.

The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.

The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real.

Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom."

--------------
The speech was deftly crafted to create the impression that Bush started the war in Iraq for reasons having to do with terrorism without actually saying that.

If that was not Bush's intent, he could have easily cleared the matter up by mentioning that the terrorists didn't have a free hand in Iraq until we ousted Saddam. But, such clarity would not reflect well on Mr. Bush.

Maybe I'm just not paying attention but I don't understand all this talk about Vietnam, Quagmires, Defeat, Disaster, Doom, and Gloom.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we:

-Obliterate the world's 3rd largest army in record time
-Capture most of the worst monsters in Iraq
-Cripple the vicious Baath party
-Kill Uday and Qusay, disgusting little cockroaches who would grow up to be just like Saddam
-Capture Saddam and show him to be a snivelling little weenie
-Foster truly free elections in Iraq
-Convince thousands of Iraqis to join the police, military, and government at great personal risk
-Lure terrorists to flood Iraq for revenge and then destroy them at every turn
-Rebuild much of the infrastructure for the good of the Iraqi people
-Prove that America won't tolerate terrorists, those who harbor them, those who support them, and those who act like them?

Yeah, we have problems. Yeah things aren't heavenly over there. We underestimated the insurgency. But it seems to me like the world is a much better place post-Iraq War. Iraq is much better off and the rest of the world knows that under the Bush Administration, America is not a force to be trifled with.

The insurgency's days are numbered. Even the native Iraqis are getting tired of them. Now it's just a waiting game as we train Iraqis, help rebuild their country, get them on their feet, and make sure they control their own destiny for once.

All these drama-bombs from the Democrats and from the Left just do not seem to match what I'm seeing over there. Am I out to lunch on this?

Victory (in Iraq) is when the new democratic Iraqi government is fully established and Iraqi forces can defend their own country.

This is pretty much what Bush says. But, like Bush, you are offering vague statements that could be interpreted any number of ways. Will the government be "fully established" when they have a constitution? Or will there be some measure of their abibility to manage infrastructure? Will the political parties need to disband their private militias? Is there a certain Iraqi troop level that would let us know they can defend their country? Basically, I want the same thing Jason does -- specific milestones. Not "when they stand up, we will stand down."

The speech was deftly crafted to create the impression that Bush started the war in Iraq for reasons having to do with terrorism without actually saying that.

So you're saying that the "incompetents" in the executive branch managed to craft a very clever speech that conveyed a message without actually saying it? OK, fine.

Personally, I don't see a problem with saying that we acted against Iraq because 9/11 taught us we can't wait around while threats are festering. It's not nearly the same as saying we ousted Saddam because he ordered the 9/11 attacks.

When it comes to marketing, the Bush administration is all kinds of competent. Credit where credit is due.

What threat to the United States was festering in Iraq? Is the threat festering in Iraq now greater or less than it was before we invaded?

I say Saddam's Iraq didn't pose any particular threat to the U.S. I also say that the instability in Iraq now poses a greater threat than any threat Saddam may have posed.

Also, call me cold and uncaring, but, while I'll be happy for the Iraqi people if they come out of this with a functioning democracy, I don't think Iraqi welfare is an appropriate use of U.S. blood and treasure.

Will the government be "fully established" when they have a constitution? Or will there be some measure of their abibility to manage infrastructure?...

The fact that there are so many different criteria by which to measure the readiness of the Iraqi government and armed forces should show the futility of trying to determine a "specific milestone." It must necessarily be a holistic judgement call. The closest I think anyone could come to giving a "milestone" would be a long list with several categories, wherein we must have 100% of category A, 80% of category B, 50% of category C, etc.

It's understandably frustrating to people who don't trust the Bush administration in the first place, but that's just the reality of the situation.

Phil, to answer your "Didn't we just..." questions, in order:

--No, we didn't just defeat the third largest army in the world. Iraq was the world's third largest army before the first Gulf War, when we defeated it decisively. This time around after ten years of debilitating sanctions, we STILL weren't able to defeat it, which speaks volumes about the ineptitude at the top.

--Yes, we captured and/or killed a bunch of monsters in Iraq. This is one clear positive outcome of the war.

--Yes, there were free elections. The real test of a democracy comes not with one election, but with how it behaves over time. The jury is still out on whether this will be a success. I think most Iraqi people want it, but "most" isn't necessarily enough.

--Yes, we have convinced thousands to join the Iraqi military and police at great personal risk. But this is a hollow achievement for two reasons. First, the economy is so wrecked by the violence that many can't find work anywhere else. Given a choice between starving and possibly being shot, many are choosing the latter. Second, the violence and great personal risk could easily have been averted by keeping the OLD Iraqi army and police force relatively more intact. Instead, we reinvented the wheel, and now we call it a success.

--Sure, we've lured terrorists to Iraq. We've also given them a chance to kill Americans, to hone their fighting skills in urban environments, and to recruit new members in a country that was previously closed to them. We've created what many have termed Jihad University, a school for all those who hate America badly enough to kill us. The number of terrorists in the world is not something we just whittle away to nothing, killing them one by one. Our actions also sometimes create terrorists, and the indigenous Iraqi insurgents are exhibit A for this phenomenon.

--Did we rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq? Oil production, electricity, and other vital signs show stagnation, not improvement.

--Did we prove that America won't tolerate terrorists? I think we sent a mixed message: No, we won't tolerate terrorists, but then again, you make us mad, and there's no telling what we might do. Personally, I'd rather be loved than feared.

I just loved the speech. It boiled down to "we're fighting terrorists in Iraq and must continue or they will win." Of course, he did not say "I
lied about the whole thing and am the cause of all this." It's like an arsonist who starts a fire and then screams that the fire must be put out or the neighborhood will burn. In this case, the arsonist is also the firechief.

One way or another, we are going to have some presence there for awhile. As a country, we are stuck with it.

The closest I think anyone could come to giving a "milestone" would be a long list with several categories, wherein we must have 100% of category A, 80% of category B, 50% of category C, etc.

Perfect. Let's do it then.

As things stand, there is a perverse clash of economic incentives in Iraq, wherein everyone (including the administration) is ultimately working to keep us there longer--and to keep the situation out of control.

The average Iraqi is happy we came, but would also love to see us leave. Trouble is, we can't do it yet because...

--The Iraqi government has an incentive to keep us there, in the form of the aid and protection we provide it.

--Despite all their talk, the insurgents also have an incentive toward keeping the U.S. in Iraq: It makes their movement seem insightful and necessary. It's a perfect recruiting tool.

--The administration has to look as though it's accomplishing something. It can't just unilaterally pull out. Even if a pullout would yield a good result, still, it would look like an admission of failure so long as any insurgency remains. But see the previous point; the occupation and the insurgency feed off one another.

We need to turn these incentives around and, if we can, get as many people working on the same goals as possible. Does the insurgency want us out of Iraq? Great, let them rebuild X kilometers of roads and pipelines. And the government wants to hold onto power? Let them give clean water and electricity to the capital, which will win the loyalties of the people by hastening the day when the Americans are gone. Do the Americans want to go home to their families? I'm certain they do. Let them work toward the specific goals we set. When they achieve them, their work will be done. We will have given the Iraqis a republic, if they can keep it, and it will have been a far better chance than most countries are ever given by outsiders.

Until then, yes, I'm going to be mistrustful of the administration. "As long as it takes" is a hollow promise when "what it takes" remains undefined.

Doug,

What threat to the United States was festering in Iraq?

At the time the decision was made to remove Saddam's regime, he was stonewalling the inspectors who were supposed to verify he'd destroyed his WMD, and most of the world community believed that was because he still had WMD. As David Kay said, "we were all wrong." That doesn't mean we didn't make the right decision based on the information we had--good cops have shot people brandishing unloaded weapons.

Jason,

This time around after ten years of debilitating sanctions, we STILL weren't able to defeat [the Iraqi army], which speaks volumes about the ineptitude at the top.

Excuse me? I presume you mean that the insurgent attacks of the last two years represent Saddam's "undefeated army" still inflicting causalties on coalition forces? That's a rather strange take on things.

By all conventional definitions, we did defeat the Iraqi army with remarkable speed. In fact, the total number of U.S. casualties to date is far less than many nay-sayers predicted we'd suffer in order to take Baghdad.

The closest I think anyone could come to giving a "milestone" would be a long list with several categories, wherein we must have 100% of category A, 80% of category B, 50% of category C, etc.

Perfect. Let's do it then.

Fine with me. In fact, I'd be surprised if there aren't planning documents like this already. But this isn't the sort of soundbyte type of thing that pundits critical of the war effort are implying they should have. And there's still a good deal of arbitrary-ness to it.

"we were all wrong."
--------------------
So, without getting into the motives and the reasons for being wrong, the pure fact of the matter is that we created a danger in Iraq that wasn't there before.

We've borrowed and spent a couple hundred billion dollars and sacrificed a thousand odd soldiers' lives to create a risk to the U.S. where there wasn't one before.

That's horrible. Regardless of how we got it wrong. It's simply appalling.

Doug, obviously a cruel fascist dictator, with links to terrorists, who over a 10-year span was uncooperative regarding his WMD system, is a danger -- especially so in light of the 9/11 attacks (because we know MidEast fascist thugs contribute to conditions for fanatical islam to spread, and MidEast fascist thugs can't be trusted with even the spectre of WMD's, especially so when they have links with terrorists).

Moreover the Danger of terrorism that is increasingly centered in Iraq was quite dispersed before, that danger being fanatical muslims blowing themselves up on our soil, on our ships and in our barracks and embassies. I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the danger we are fighting.

"because we know MidEast fascist thugs contribute to conditions for fanatical islam to spread"

I absolutely disagree with this statement. Saddam was a big bag of awful, but fanatical islam wasn't something Iraq incubated because fanatical islam was a threat to the only thing Saddam valued -- his own power. Now, if we'd invaded Saudi Arabia, you'd have a great point.

Doug,

We were wrong on the biggest casus belli--though Saddam could have averted the war at any time by fully cooperating with the inspectors. From a "war should always be the last resort" standpoint, we wouldn't have invaded if we'd known Saddam didn't have WMD--though from a legal standpoint he'd certainly violated enough terms of the 1991 ceasefire to justify removing him from power. So from that point of view, the war was a mistake. Nevertheless, it has been a net positive for all the reasons Phil listed above.

[Re: Our "failure to defeat" Saddam's army.]

I presume you mean that the insurgent attacks of the last two years represent Saddam's "undefeated army" still inflicting causalties on coalition forces? That's a rather strange take on things.

Exactly what I mean, and it's not a strange take on things at all. Are we not still fighting Baathists? Getting them to abandon their uniforms in favor of guerilla warfare isn't a victory; it's just a change in the order of battle.

Whether or not it was a victory or a "change in the order of battle" depends on the question that got raised earlier in the thread, as to what counts as victory here. If it is merely eliminating Hussein and the control, in gross terms, of the terrain of Iraq, then we did indeed win pretty quickly. But if it is, as Eric (rightly, I think) suggested, "when the new democratic Iraqi government is fully established and Iraqi forces can defend their own country", then it's entirely fair to say (as Jason suggests) that we're still fighting the original war, in a different mode.

>>Phil's list of net positives:

Others may well have other opinions of what to put in the plus column, but I don't regard the following as doing the U.S. any practical good. And others may well have more concern for individuals outside the U.S. -- I personally think U.S. foreign policy ought to be selfishly focused on the U.S.:

Obliterate the world's 3rd largest army in record time
Wasn't doing us any harm. Wasn't likely to do us any harm in the foreseeable future.

Capture most of the worst monsters in Iraq
-Cripple the vicious Baath party
-Kill Uday and Qusay, disgusting little cockroaches who would grow up to be just like Saddam
-Capture Saddam and show him to be a snivelling little weenie
-Foster truly free elections in Iraq
-Convince thousands of Iraqis to join the police, military, and government at great personal risk

-Rebuild much of the infrastructure for the good of the Iraqi people.

All of these were probably very, very good thing for Iraqis. Doesn't do much one way or the other for Americans.

-Lure terrorists to flood Iraq for revenge and then destroy them at every turn.
This isn't a zero-sum game. There aren't a finite number of terrorists. I have no special access to military intelligence, so quite possibly I'm wrong. But, I happen to think our Iraqi adventure has done more to create terrorists than it has to destroy them.

Prove that America won't tolerate terrorists, those who harbor them, those who support them, and those who act like them?

Invading Iraq didn't do that. Iraq wasn't known as a significant source of terrorism under Hussein -- because he was an egomaniac focused on his own power and not ideology. Certainly Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are (and were) known to be much greater hotbeds of Islamic extremism. We dealt with the first one. The other two -- not so much.

So, I think we're less safe than we were 3 years ago. And, I don't think it's proper to borrow and spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice over a thousand American lives to secure benefits for Iraqis.

"Moreover the Danger of terrorism that is increasingly centered in Iraq was quite dispersed before, that danger being fanatical muslims blowing themselves up on our soil, on our ships and in our barracks and embassies. I think you have a severe misunderstanding of the danger we are fighting."

I am acting under the following assumptions...

1. That those willing to join fanatical Muslim terrorist organizations are willing to do so under the construct that their way of life is threatened by the United States of America.

2. That invading a nation that shares a sense of identity with the rest of the Muslim world sends forth a threat to the entire Muslim world.

If those assumptions are even correct then how is fighting in the Muslim world helping to ultimately end terrorism. Let's attempt for a second to back away from current policy and look at the possible causality of the situation so that we can go for root causes, not manifestations.

It would seem to me that directly threatening a movement whose recruitment thrives on a sense of being threatened is somewhat self-defeating. It also seems to me that localizing that movement (and the conflict against it) does not place it in greater danger due to it not being based on a locality, but rather a shared perception of threat.

If we had enough troops to close off the borders we could surely stop foreign terrorists from entering Iraq, as is being attempted. Wouldn't that then free those persons being refused entry to our localized battlefield of choice to redirect their point of attack?

Just some questions.

Jason:

Are we not still fighting Baathists?

In part, yes, although critics of the war have largely dismissed that notion, preferring to portray the insurgency as a popular resistance to the American occupation. In reality, it seems we're fighting a mix of Baathists, other Sunnis upset that they lost their position of power, and foreign terrorists.

But even if most of the insurgent attacks could be attributed to former Iraqi army elements, it's ridiculous to attribute that to "ineptitude at the top." Tell me, how is an invading force supposed to prevent opposing military units from running away, abandoning their uniforms, and blending into the civilian population?

That those willing to join fanatical Muslim terrorist organizations are willing to do so under the construct that their way of life is threatened by the United States of America.

Your assumption is incorrect. We threaten fanatical Muslims' way of life only inasmuch as we are a secular democracy. This is why jihadist terror groups have attacked Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul. They've even attacked Saudi Arabia, for crying out loud, because while that land is no paragon of freedom, it's run by an aristocracy, not a theocracy.

Phil:

-Lure terrorists to flood Iraq for revenge and then destroy them at every turn

Scof:

Moreover the Danger of terrorism that is increasingly centered in Iraq was quite dispersed before, that danger being fanatical muslims blowing themselves up on our soil, on our ships and in our barracks and embassies.

I'm pretty sure it was predicted before the war that Iraq under US control would serve as an attractant to terrorists, but it is not really consistent with our other stated goal of helping the Iraqis to live free, democratic, and healthy lies.

I'm sure it is cold comfort to the bereaved Iraqis who have lost parents or children to know that they are helping our war on terrorism by concentrating terrorists and giving the US army a chance to practice its urban warfare skills.

We should be mourning the fact that the Iraqis brutalized by Saddam now have to suffer through terrorist bombings, not calling it an achievement because it distracts the terrorists from our cities.

Tell me, how is an invading force supposed to prevent opposing military units from running away, abandoning their uniforms, and blending into the civilian population?

By offering them jobs. It certainly worked with the low-level Nazis.

We tried that, Jason. Low-level Baath party members were offered jobs in the police force and other civil services. Predictably, the Shiites weren't thrilled about the idea, and war critics were skeptical, too.

References:
http://patterico.com/2003/04/14
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002354.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0421/p08s01-woiq.htm

BTW, I don't mean to suggest we were unsuccessful at "rehabilitating" low-level Baathists. I'm sure some have become fine examples of civil servants in the new Iraq; I just don't know how many.

"'That those willing to join fanatical Muslim terrorist organizations are willing to do so under the construct that their way of life is threatened by the United States of America.'

Your assumption is incorrect. We threaten fanatical Muslims' way of life only inasmuch as we are a secular democracy. This is why jihadist terror groups have attacked Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul. They've even attacked Saudi Arabia, for crying out loud, because while that land is no paragon of freedom, it's run by an aristocracy, not a theocracy."

Your logic here isn't making sense to me.

You seem to be saying that if A is affected by a subset of B it is not affect by B in and of itself. That doesn't work, especially if that subset of B is widely seen as the defining characteristic of B.

As such I'm still looking for some responses as to how we can best move towards cessation of root causation. If (and I'm sure there is very strong evidence for this if as shown in the current situation) being in Iraq attracts foreign terrorists or swells the number terrorists then are we committed to merely holding it down as the French conceptualized they could at Dien Bien Phu?

I was referring to the military, not to the civil service, as I thought was clear from the context of the original question. Disbanding the military was a blunder that shouldn't be swept under the rug.