Why'd Bush speak right now?

President Bush spoke to the nation tonight. It was his eighth speech on the Iraq war in recent weeks. And it lasted 17 minutes.

Predictably, he accepted the troop drawdown proposal of Gen. David Petraeus to get some 5,700 U.S. troops out by Christmas and more than 21,000 by next summer. And equally predictably, Democrats, especially those who would like to live in the White House, found immediate fault with the president's remarks. Yada yada yada.

(By the way, did you too notice the initial absence of Hillary Clinton among the chorus of critics? It's not due to any natural reticence. Tomorrow night is her big Hollywood fundraiser at Magic Johnson's house.)

But why did Bush bother to speak tonight?

It's tempting for sure. Strike while the iron is hot and all the political talk is about war progress. But from a strategic communications point of view, his speech tonight was both unnecessary and counterproductive.

The president's standing in the polls is low, which he really doesn't place much stock in, but is still indicative of a broad social attitude. A majority of Americans now think the Iraq war was a mistake. And if they've been unpersuaded by seven recent Bush speeches, yet one more today seems rather unlikely to swing the tide.

The president is a lame duck without his loyal Texans and with little leverage confronting a resurgent Democratic party controlling both houses of Congress and smelling victory in '08. But Congress has an even lower poll rating in part because the newly elected Democrats promised too much last fall and led fervent followers to believe they could actually end the war. They've got their own large political problem now.

That was their mistake. Speaking tonight was Bush's.

He had already won the week, not through his own efforts but through the straightforward testimony and credibility of two professionals, Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker. Their convincing words had strengthened the resolve of the Republican minority to stick with the president's surge strategy, at least for a few more months, because it looks like we're winning. As commentator Charles Krauthammer has so perfectly put it, "Americans are not anti-war. They're anti-losing wars."

More importantly perhaps, this week's testimony had put Democrats on the defensive with their base and changed the topic of conversation away from an unpopular president to a well-postured, bemedaled general who spoke in measured tones, endured endless political pontificating by panelists who offered their pre-written comments before the witness spoke and answered every question to the best of his experienced ability.

The persuasive hours of testimony by Petraeus and Crocker, even encapsulated in brief TV sound bites for the short attention span of most Americans, had bought the president's surge strategy some more months possibly to show even more success. The next report to Congress comes in March.

This testimony and the campaign fights over the "Gen. Betray Us" newspaper ad of MoveOn.org, would have dominated the Capitol's and media chatter for days, certainly through the ponderous Sunday news talk shows, which seem to take the nation's political temperature each week. So let the paint of that positive impression dry for 10 days or so. Then give your speech accepting the recommendations.

No.

Instead, the president re-inserted himself into the line of fire with a typically well-crafted speech that covers all the bases. But more importantly, Bush put himself back front and center as the delicious, detested, unifying target of Democrats, who couldn't take on the general and no longer have Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove to kick around. All Bush had to do was let them stew in their own juices while the revolt on the left simmers. What could the Democrats have done with no soft obvious targets and an impatient political base?

Suddenly, the president offers himself up. How perfect!

Now, watch and listen and read as they fire away.

At the end of his remarks this evening, Bush said: "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."

All of which may well be true. But the fact is though, from a strategic communications point of view, it was a week too early for him to get into all that.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Ryan Lepore]

I don't think Bush is going to pull those troops out by next year. I think he's lying!

[Richard]

Why'd all the Democrats bother to respond? Judging by the fact that every single comment from Reid, Pelosi, Clnton, Obama, etc, etc, was nearly a carbon copy of what the other Dems said, they should have all just issued one press release with all of their names on it and saved us the trouble of boring ourselves to death.
Or were they purposely trying to go even lower than 20% approval rating in the polls?

[joe]

bush's speech was just more propaganda

[Al K Dah]

The only blow we can strike at at Al Quida is by charging their partners in crime, George Bush and Dick Cheney, with crimes against humanity.

[Russ]

The President's speech was necessary and right on. His speech continued to address the need of why we must win in Iraq. Why Iraq is not to be handed over to chaos. I wish all Americans could see this need. Unfortunately many are politically blinded and still have the taste of Vietnam in their mouths and think this war is like Vietnam was...but it clearly isn't. Our enemies are not communist idealists...they are Islamic fundamentalists who believe the entire Middle East should succumb to their radical ideas of Islam. And if any enemy is perceived as interfering with that goal, they are to be terrorized and destroyed.

This war is necessary, just and we must win.

[john n. perez]

Does any one else hear echos of Viet Nam? At the most conservatve time line this will be a ten year quaqmire! The Billions squandered on destroing a nation, to rebuild over and over again-only to leave it utlimately ruined. Never mind the tens of thousands of dead/wounded civilians and the thousands of dead US military service men/women. There is no way out-God help us all through this suffering! Lastly, I thought the premise for being there was WMD's not nation building........

[Warren]

Retreat? Cut-n-Run? Quitters? Is that what America is about? Ok, the war was a mistake. But the facts are, we are there. I say lets give the new general a fighting chance and lets give him all the tools and rescources he and our troops need to win!

[John Smart]

i have one thing to say to all this prowar nuts. go to iraq. sign up. go.
bush lost this war years ago. not the democrats, not the military. bush, cheney and rumsfeld conducted this bogus war like morons. any 7th grader who has played Risk could have done better. bush created the war. bush lost the war. it is time for real patriots to stand up and see to it bush is impeached, put on trial in the senate and removed from office. America deserves no less.
Every word Bush said tonight was a lie. the man is a pathological liar.

[Vic Arpeggio]

Anyone believing that this is the just and right thing to do is delusional and sad. This conflict isn't worth a single American life, much less 3,000 of them, not to mention all of the wounded-- and the Iraqi dead. Those of you who equal fighting terrorism with this pyrrhic "victory" in Iraq are blind to the fact that we, not Saddam Hussein, were the ones who created the terrorist conflict that now exists in Iraq. Terrorism is evil, true, but WE are the bad guys here.

[HeatlhyBreeze]

The war was a mistake.

So, how do we best fix a mistake?

What do we get if we spend another $100 billion letting George Bush run out the clock and dump the mess on someone else's lap? We are not even buying peace. We are just delaying the inevitable battle for supremacy amongst the Mahdi Army (which is laying low for 6 months) the Badr Brigade (another Shiite sect), the Sunnis, and the poor Kurds. Whenever we leave, that's when the fighting happens, so we may as well pull our troops out now before we burn out our army, and save the hundreds of billions of dollars Bush would have us waste.

[Peter Haramis]

I echo the comments of Vic Arpeggio posted Sept 14, 2007 at 2:47 AM. I also agree with Joe Biden when he said " Bush is insulting the intelligence of Americans when he invokes the help of 36 other countries fighting the war with us!"

[Kasui]

Looks like just another cover-up of a fiasco foretold by the motives for invading iraq in the first place. True, Irak is a vector between the east and west of the Middle East. However, it now seems left over to the dysfunctional US national security apparatus to arrive at a conclusion, favored by the war party or to Israel to take charge on Iran. The problem with both solutions is that they have consequences for the stability and alliances of the US. Who talks about the 240,000 men, Petraeus has set as the bar for stabilizing Irak ? Who talks about declaring war on Irak ? Where is EU ?

[Southern Beale]

What short memories we have. This "we'll bring home the troops" ploy is second only to trotting out politically expedient terror alerts. Remember the summer of 2006 when we were promised a troop withdrawal? And the fall of 2005?

It's the same old song and dance. Only a fool would buy this ridiculous dog and pony show time after time.

[steveRB]

Yes Warren. We are there and you seem to believe that the incompetents who got us there are qualified to rectify the situation. Bravo.

[DAS]

Back in late 2002 / 2003, it was clear, at least to some, that 'Enduring Freedom', was an operation that had a dubious and clouded objective.

Elimination of WMD's and Saddam Hussein were most likely not the primary mission initiatives - but were red herrings - used to distract an angry nation into pre-emptive "defence" against Iraq.

Any thoughful analysis of the situation (during that time) should have prompted questions regarding the target, in light of other extremely volatile regions with capabilities that threatened US security (ie. Iran, Syria, N Korea). If cooler heads had prevailed, Afghanistan would have remained priority.

However, the war went ahead.

The past cannot be undone.

In any event, war weariness has set in (which would inevitably happen in any war in which the U.S. cannot rapidly achieve clear objectives).

Unfortunately, after 4 years, the United States is now in an untenable situation. It cannot withdraw troops. This is not an opinion - but a fact (that is: if it wishes to keep some sort of order in the increasingly turbulent middle east).

If the troops were to leave, blood would be spilled in Iraq in unprecedented levels. The world would, no doubt, view this castastrophe as - IN PART - U.S. irresponsibility for breaking a nation and then abandoning it.

However, aside from above, Iran is POISED to move if the U.S. draws down. The Shia dominated nation is more involved in Iraq than most people know (and have their hands in Afghanistan - and possibly Pakistan).

They are a much better equipped nation militarily than Iraq (and although they would be crippled and beaten badly by the U.S. in direct conflict) they would most certainly inflict more U.S. casualties if such a war were to occur.

Their air defence capabilities are being upgraded and coming on-line which would make the nation harder to soften with American air power. And more disturbingly, their intelligence network is broader and more sophisticated than some realize. Iran would, no doubt, use these assets to extend destructive reach worldwide.

Furthermore, there is speculation of a "defence pact" between Iran and Syria - and by logical extension - Hezbollah - which are well positioned to attack Israeli domestic targets.

On the other side of the coin, the Saudi's would not allow Iran to move in to the vacuum left by the U.S. without providing a "counter balance" for Iraqi Sunni's (which is Saudia Arabia's dominant form of Islam). The Saudi's would push back aggressively - and Iraq would be the focal point.

In short, the middle east would become unhinged and it's tenous stability would snap.

And so it appears that the troops will not leave in substantial levels - despite growing public opposition.

As an aside and more speculatively, a military strike awaits Iran in the next 6 to 18 months in an effort to knock out any nuclear "aspirations" they may have. What this may cost or result in is unpredicatable...

An observer...

[Ed Beyer]

I wish folks would open the map and look at what surrounds Iraq.

We are in iraq for oil. Not just Iraq's but the entire region. A region so unstable that protecting our ability to purchase oil is vital to our strength and security.

Recent news releases cite the military building bases near the Iran border. Smart move in my opinion. What is going to happen is instead of 100,000 troops coming home in a year or two, they will be pulled BACK from Baghdad and stationed along the Iranian border. You will recall even some Dems encouraging a 'pullback not a 'pullout'.

Iraq is no longer a threat after Sadam's departure. The new and very real threat is Iran. We are now Iran's next door neighbor. With Iran going nuke, I think the timing of the Iraq war could not have been planned any better.

[Steve Biodrowski]

Lousy post - the usual "balanced" attempt at treating the news as some kind of sports game where both sides score points and the outcome is treated as if it has no real consequences.

Polls show that the American public does not trust "the two professionals, Gen. Petraeus and Amb. Ryan Crocker."

We also know that the supposed drawdown of troops has nothing to do with success in Iraq. There was a surge remember? By definition, a sruge is temporary. The army cannot sustain it. That's why some troops will be rotated back.

Bush's speech was a vain attempt to spin this simple logistical fact into a symbol of triumph.

A post on that topic would have been worth writing.

(Ans: Balanced? This item was balanced? We must be writing/reading a different item.-AM)

[M Hickerson]

A brief review of the today's New York Times reveals that the cynical calculation that Bush has made here is of course, as we all know (despite the many disinformation campaigns to the contrary) THE WHOLE THING IS DESIGNED TO SUPPORT BUSH'S CONTRIBUTORS IN THE OIL INDUSTRY.
Paul Krugman's column points out that Ray L. Hunt cut a separate deal with the Kurds to produce their oil. This man was a part of the secret energy task force meetings of Cheney. Separate deals with separate "governmental entities" reveal what we all suspect. There is no "nation of Iraq". There's several large struggling entities and many more smaller entities struggling to survive.There is no nation of Iraq and the U.S. still needs Iraqi oil. the fall back position for big oil is to cut separate regional deals with the regional governments. That is exactly what has happened.

Bush neglects to mention in his public pronouncements that the number of private contractors in Iraq is approaching the number of troops deployed there. The "no bid, built in profit" contracts continue as we see out troops ruthlessly exploited for pfoit of the private entities operating there.

Those that buy in to the new idea that this is a necessary front in the War on Terror, haven't we learned by now that there is no particular military solution for this, and that the "front" in any war against religious extremists is right here at home? Why did he let Bin Laden escape? Why don't they get him now? They know where he is. It is all to serve a larger purpose.

If you haven't seen "Iraq For Sale" , you can't really speak to the situation in Iraq. Remember that nothing is as it seems to these masters of propaganda.

And while we're on the subject , what happened to "NATIONAL " interests, and FEDERAL Security? This isn't my "Homeland/Fatherland" it's my country, and I refuse to cower in fear every time BinLaden pops up on You Tube.

[Jim H]

Dear Richard,

2/3 of the people want out of Bush's war in Iraq. The only reason Congress has such low ratings is because they haven't been able to get the insane president to budge. I say they should start impeachment proceedings. Then you'll see Congress's number shoot up.

[Condor]

M. Hickerson is right: this is and always was a war for oil. Bush and Osama are nothing but puppets, and specular ones at that, of the Big Puppetteers who have put them there: the Consortium of Big Oil. They OWN both Osama and Bush, and move them around as they please, to fulfill their greed. The ancient Romans had a Latin phrase that is: CUI PRODEST? meaning, "who profits from it? - that is the culprit." That wisdom stands, and Americans need to start asking themselves a removed question, and cease their being in denial. The simple questions that Americans is not asking themselves is: WHO REALLY PROFITED FROM 9/11 ? ... If they truthfully answer that questions, Americans will then understand who REALLY conceived, authorized and executed 9/11... Open your eyes!

[Bill]

GWB is so clueless that it boggles the mind.

Send Cheney over to Iraq and he must stay there until things are resolved. No more hunting trips in Texas or anyplace else, just stay in Iraq until he gets shot dead or anything else might happen to his brainless body. Take Wolfowitz and Perle as personal advisors.

[Miles E Tilly]

George W. Bush is a pathological liar as he once again proved by his speech last night. Practically, every assertion of fact made by Bush was false and an insult to the intelligence of the American People. The truth is that Bush is now responsible for the deaths of 4,000 American Soldiers, the wounding of 27,000 American Soldiers, and the murder of perhaps 100,000 innocent Iraqi People. Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress do not yet have the votes needed to stop this madman. However, every American should look at the GOP members supporting Bush for what they truly are -- accomplices to his crimes against humanity. Then, in November 2008 they should do the right thing and put a Democrat in the White House and give the Democrats large majorities in both Houses of Congress. When, that happens I'm sure Bush's Iraq war will be brought to a swift and successful conclusion, i.e., the safe withdrawal of our brave men and women dying in that country for no good reason.