Posted by
Thomas Lasher on Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:07:18 PM
President Bush’s January 10 address to the nation lacked linguistic pizzazz, but made up for it in content and straightforward, matter-of-fact simplicity of message. How much clearer can it be stated? “Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” This was not the time for a speech filled with lofty phrases and sweeping rhetoric. The President’s main objective was to explain what changes would be made to our Iraq strategy, and he did so effectively, without fanfare.
As we now watch the implementation of his stated goals, it is important to realize that these strategic adjustments do not represent any real change in our overall policy. It is in fact a bolstering, not an alteration, of what the President has envisioned for the Middle East all along. If the speech had a subtle and understated style it was only because its purpose was to present an unwavering determination to finish our already established objectives. In other words, it was not a flowery exposition on the brotherhood of mankind and our duty to posterity; rather it was a nose-to-the-grindstone, pull-up-your-shirtsleeves appeal to the nation.
Such bland speeches, as necessary as they are, are also soon forgotten. So I would like to revisit this January address to make the most of what it has to offer. In it President Bush tackled the problem of the ongoing violence in Iraq and the call from some that the U. S. should leave sooner rather than later.
In answer to the “pullout now”/Cindy Sheehan Democrats, Bush points out that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal.”
And of course he is right. And the Democrats, deep down inside, know that he is right. Which is why, now that the Dems hold the Congressional purse strings, they will continue to fund our operations in Iraq even while they voice opposition. Calling for redeployment (codeword for “withdraw”) might sound good to liberal constituents back home, but in the long run they all know, as well as the President, that such a move would cause more violence and death not less, for our troops as well as the Iraqi people. Withdraw is not a solution; it is a deepening of the problem.
We will therefore stay in Iraq, and we will win the peace. That has been our policy and it remains so. The addition of more than twenty thousand troops will only increase our chance of success. With that in mind Bush also called for a lessoning of restrictions on our troops so that they can operate more freely on the ground; and imbedding our troops within Iraqi units; and a ramping up of Iraqi military and police training. What we have here is the formation of a real plan for success (something Democrats have yet to put forward).
The President understands that “[t]he most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security.” And “security” in that volatile region does not come about by finding the quickest exit strategy, abandoning a fledgling democracy, and leaving the door open for the next tyrant or radical regime. Peace and security in Iraq will require much work yet before us. As President Bush grimly warned us “The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve.” And the enemy will not rest. “[T]hey will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties.”
The January 10 speech reminds us that nothing in Iraq has changed except a strengthening of American resolve in the face of an evil threat. It was a necessary reminder to us all that we have only begun our task, a task that extends beyond our own boarders and even beyond the boarders of Iraq itself. We face a broader struggle still, according to the President, a struggle I will discuss in Part II of this series.
Originally published in the January 31, 2007 issue of The Capitol News