The absurd Bush speech

I found myself watching the president's speech tonight astonished and infuriated that he had the nerve to say the things he was saying. I don't know if it's worse to imagine that he's cynically saying things he doesn't believe, or that he really believes such nonsense. Whatever the case, it was a deeply dishonest speech.

[You can read my long point-by-point fisking of it, but I really do encourage you to read Andrew Sullivan's far better and more eloquent comment. Andrew pitied Bush tonight; I had no pity at all, just anger at this blind and prideful man and the miry pit he's led this nation and its soldiers into.]

Throughout the speech, Bush spoke as if the main problem in Iraq was al-Qaeda. This is because the only substantive success he has to show for the surge is against al-Qaeda's presence in Anbar province, which he characterized like this:

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al Qaeda that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours -- a decent life and a peaceful future.

Al-Qaeda, though, is not what's keeping Iraq a mess. It's Sunni vs. Shia sectarian civil war. And it's Shia vs. Shia in the southern part of the country. What's so outrageously misleading about the president's speech is his fallacious attempt to make the public think that the success against al-Qaeda in Anbar can be replicated across the country, thus solving the problem. In fact, the more powerful the Sunnis of Anbar become, the more hostile and suspicious the Shias grow. Our success in Anbar undermines the central government.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by Coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

Are sectarian killings down? The independent General Accounting Ofice doesn't think so. Besides, if some neighborhoods are safe, it could be because sectarian militias have driven all the rival believers out (the GAO found that more and more Iraqis -- up to 100,000 a month -- are fleeing their homes for safe enclaves). And the Dora market -- a showplace for Gen. Petraeus' strategy -- is reportedly a Potemkin village.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up, and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

Really? Wouldn't that be nice. If that were the case, then, whose carrying out all the civilian killings?

The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks -- and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Or what? You've just announced that even though the surge is a failure by the benchmarks you agreed to earlier in the year, we're going to continue it -- and by next July, there'll be 7,000 more troops in country than were there when you announced the surge. Where is the incentive for the Iraqi government to do what you want them to do?

Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces.

This morning's New York Times reported that the tentative oil deal appears to be collapsing.

According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the National Police.

Actually the Jones report said that it will be a year to 18 months before the Iraqi army is capable of handling internal security (N.B., the US military has been saying that the Iraqi army is on the verge of readiness since 2005), and it called for the disbanding of the hopelessly corrupt police force.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is "return on success." The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.

This year's version of the tired old line, "As the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down." That line was first said by the president in November 2005, when he relaunched the war with a major speech at the US Naval Academy. You really should read it, in light of the false promises he's made about the readiness of the Iraqi Army. Given that Gen. Jones' panel called on the pathetic Iraqi national police force to be sacked, it's worth paying special attention to Bush's 2005 remarks about what a promising bunch of fellows those police officers were, and how splendid our plans were:

Similar changes have taken place in the training of the Iraqi police. When our coalition first arrived, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time of their training in classroom lectures and they received limited training in the use of small arms.

This did not adequately prepare them for the fight they would face. And so we changed the way the Iraqi police are trained.

Now police recruits spend more of their time outside the classroom, with intensive hands-on training in anti-terrorism operations and real-world survival skills.

Iraq has now six basic police academies and one in Jordan that together produce over 3,500 new police officers every 10 weeks.

The Baghdad police academy has simulation models where Iraqis train to stop IED attacks and operate roadblocks. And because Iraqi police are not just facing common criminals, they're getting live-fire training with AK-47s.

As more and more skilled Iraqi security forces have come on-line, there's been another important change in the way new Iraqi recruits are trained.

When the training effort began, nearly all the trainers came from coalition countries. Today, the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are being taught by Iraqi instructors.

By training the trainers, we're helping Iraqis create an institutional capability that will allow the Iraqi forces to continue to develop and grow long after coalition forces have left Iraq.

As the training has improved, so has the quality of the recruits being trained.

Even though the terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and army recruits, there is no shortage of Iraqis who are willing to risk their lives to secure the future of a free Iraq.

From the president's speech tonight:

Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

Bull. He is not reaching across the aisle. Except for the 5,000 by Christmas, all those soldiers would have had to have come home next year anyway by summer. And we'll still have more troops in Iraq than before the surge!

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror -- and that will make us safer here at home.

Exactly who are these Iraqis clamoring for a "free" Iraq? They went to the polls and voted for their own sectarian parties. They want to live in an Iraq controlled by their own tribes and sects! As far as the Shia are concerned, Iraq will be free only when they are in total control. A "free Iraq" exists only in Bush's head.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

We have heard from several top military commanders, including the head of the Joint Chiefs, over the past year, all saying that military progress means nothing without political progress. Notice in all of Bush's speech, he did not say anything about how political progress was going to be made. Because you know why? It can't be done. This is why America can't win in Iraq. The idea at this late date that he would even bother to invoke the prospect of a "free Iraq," and "freedom" in Iraq, is either utterly moronic or disgracefully cynical.

For your edification, here's a compendium of quotes regarding Iraq from previous prime-time Iraq speeches:

4/18/04:

Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country. The transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we have that confidence. Many Iraqi leaders are showing great personal courage, and their example will bring out the same quality in others. The transition to sovereignty also requires an atmosphere of security, and our coalition is working to provide that security. We will continue taking the greatest care to prevent harm to innocent civilians; yet we will not permit the spread of chaos and violence. I have directed our military commanders to make every preparation to use decisive force, if necessary, to maintain order and to protect our troops.

The nation of Iraq is moving toward self-rule, and Iraqis and Americans will see evidence in the months to come.

12/18/05:

"In all three aspects of our strategy -- security, democracy, and reconstruction -- we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq."

(9/11/06):

"We can be confident that our coalition will succeed because the Iraqi people have been steadfast in the face of unspeakable violence."

1/10/07:

"Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

...And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can, and we will, prevail."