After watching our President address the nation last night on the State of the Union, I felt compelled to post my observations on his performance. The following comments are a hodgepodge of my own feelings and those written by others whom I have either paraphrased or quoted directly without acknowledgement. I have limited my comments to the situation in Iraq and will leave it to others to discuss the domestic issues as I am very content with my life in America.
While this was probably the most difficult speech President Bush will ever make, he came through it pretty well, all things considered. Whether you loathe him or love him, last night you saw a humbled president stand before his nation and give a speech that seemed less about the State of the Union and more about the state of his presidency. This should come as no surprise. The president knew he was addressing a nation that has lost confidence in his leadership and a Congress that was elected to challenge his priorities. However, while appearing bruised, battered and battling to stay relevant, Bush sounded nothing like a man down for the count. Circumstances have clearly humbled Bush and have robbed him of some of his cockiness but he was not bowed. I have never seen the President play to the crowd in such a way as he did last night as it was clear that he desperately needed our approval. His conciliatory tone in addressing the new Democratic majority was unprecedented and he seemed to be reaching out, even flirting with compromise.
However, Bush was very careful to skirt the negative aspects of the war in Iraq and in fact, barely even mentioned our fallen soldiers but as usual, made multiple attempts to link the conflict to 9/11. The truth of the matter is that until Bush incorrectly and irresponsibly linked terrorism and Iraq these were drastically separate issues. The President?s argument that Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror still rings hollow, as did his assertion that his proposed troop surge in Baghdad will enable the Iraqi government to pacify their troubled people.
?This is not the fight that we entered, but it is the fight that we are in.? This is yet another chilling example of Bush?s refusal to face the obvious. The ?fight that we are in? is precisely ?the fight that we entered?. How is it any different? It is no surprise to anyone except those within this administration that the Iraqi ?insurgents? are not now nor have they ever been pleased with Uncle Sam invading their country and attempting to shove our own ideas of how they should live their lives down their throats. "America is still at war," Bush declared last night, arguing that we have to "take the fight to the enemy." This analysis is clearly too simplistic as most of those fighting us are not out to destroy America, they are out to eject us from their country. Our presence does not pacify them, it insults and inflames them.
The invasion of Iraq was a double strategic blunder. First, it was a diversion from, not a response to, the war against international terrorism. Second, it has tied down our military in a costly occupation, fighting an insurgency that has strengthened not only the Shia population of Iraq, but also in Iran. America needs and deserves a real debate about all these issues, and about our strategy in Iraq itself. The key question facing us is how long we should be expected to occupy Iraq. Someday we are going to leave and most Americans want us to finish this mission and come home, as long as we do not leave even greater chaos behind. The Administration has never shared with us a specific approach of its own.
The Administration has repeatedly responded to legitimate queries about when, and how, we will extricate ourselves from this mess into an all-purpose, self-serving slogan. It is aimed not at answering the public's growing concern, but at smearing those that raise these questions. Over and over, all we hear from this camp is ?Cut and run!? Now the President is mounting what is the latest "surge" against the unseen enemy, the umpteenth of its kind, is to be called A New Way Forward which is not to be confused with the February 2006, Operation Together Forward. The President has not been talking about how Operation New Way Forward is to be paid for. Some of it will be paid for in our young people's lives, of course, but as for the money, Congress is to appropriate it, the Treasury Department is to borrow it from China and Mr. Bush will spend it.
National security policy under the Bush-Cheney Administration is and has been in total disarray. There is in fact, no end in sight to the conflict in Iraq, the Middle East is out of control, Al Qaeda is stronger today than it was six years ago, and homeland security is being neglected. These difficulties have come about, in large part, because those who are leading us lack the kind of strategic vision that has served our country so well in past eras.
In the Democrat?s response to the Presidents speech, Sen. Jim Webb referred to how Dwight Eisenhower responded when faced with the ?bloody stalemate? that was the Korean War. "When comes the end?" asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. Eisenhower had a view on this sort of thinking, too. In 1952, with the Korean conflict in only its second year, he railed against those who backed a set deadline for withdrawal, but argued just as forcefully against those content to say that ?nothing can be done to speed a secure peace.? This, he said, was to say that the ?strongest nation in the history of freedom can only wait and wait and wait.? However, the waiting frustrated Eisenhower, and he pledged to bring ?an early and honorable end? to the Korean War. Once in office, he sided with those who wished to end the conflict at the 38th parallel rather than push northward to roust the communists. The armistice was signed just six months after Ike took office.
Few Americans called Dwight Eisenhower unpatriotic in the summer of 1952 when he criticized the Truman Administration for its conduct of the Korean War. It?s appropriate in this era where Generals who speak out are accused of betrayal, to quote the five star General who became our president. Eisenhower understood, as today's leaders fail to understand, that wars end in only two ways. Either one side defeats the other militarily, with the vanquished forced to submit to the victor's terms of surrender. Or there is a negotiated settlement that results in total victory for none, but ends a war no one has truly won. We know that the ?war on terror? has no endpoint; the President himself has said so. There will be no treaties signed with terrorists, or with the ?insurgents? who bedevil us in Iraq. We know, too, that the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is unsustainable in the long run. So we must take all steps necessary to shorten its run.
What Eisenhower understood is that ultimately, the goal of war is supposed to be peace. It is a word uttered rarely, if at all, in today's arguments about Iraq. Negotiations, while difficult, controversial and unsatisfying to many in their terms, ended both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. The settlements were agreed to by Republican presidents Eisenhower and Richard Nixon and not, it must be noted, by Democrats who supposedly favor ?cut and run.? Our current president seems to define the absence of war as capitulation, and conducts his politics on that basis. But his predecessors understood that the absence of war can also be defined as peace.
But what is it that unifies the United States? By the end of President Bush's State of the Union address, it was clear that the unifying force upon which this administration continues to depend is fear. Fear of terrorists and purveyors of evil who wish to harm or destroy our civilization. The attempt to scare Americans back into line, and into silence, was evident in the President's invocations of the horrors of September 11th and his dire warnings that more horrors await us if the US withdraws from Iraq and leaves it to the terrorists.
Should we be terrorized by such discourses into accepting the views and interests of a small group of men, led by President Bush and Vice President Cheney? Should we leave life and death decisions about war and peace to people who have never been in a combat zone, who have shredded the Geneva Conventions and undermined international and multilateral frameworks of peace keeping and diplomacy while filling the coffers of corporations and special interest groups?
The United States was founded to be a state of laws, not of men. Bush and those closest to him have moved America far from this ideal. They have done so by deceiving the public, passing laws that undermine the values of a great democracy and a just society, and dampening debate and media coverage by equating criticism of the administration with a lack of patriotism or a dearth of resolve in facing the dangerous terrorists, all of whom, they would have us believe, live in Iraq.
The State of our Union is not good. The Union of our State requires clear thinking, courageous decisions, and humility in the face of mistakes that have destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. The new members of Congress, as well as the people who voted for them, should resist the easy escape of uniting Americans on the basis of fear, blind pride, ignorance and intolerance. The State of our Union can be strengthened and renewed only with clear thinking, sane policies, mature behavior, and a return to the rule of law at home and abroad. We the people can do this. We must do it: President Bush has amply demonstrated that he cannot.
While this was probably the most difficult speech President Bush will ever make, he came through it pretty well, all things considered. Whether you loathe him or love him, last night you saw a humbled president stand before his nation and give a speech that seemed less about the State of the Union and more about the state of his presidency. This should come as no surprise. The president knew he was addressing a nation that has lost confidence in his leadership and a Congress that was elected to challenge his priorities. However, while appearing bruised, battered and battling to stay relevant, Bush sounded nothing like a man down for the count. Circumstances have clearly humbled Bush and have robbed him of some of his cockiness but he was not bowed. I have never seen the President play to the crowd in such a way as he did last night as it was clear that he desperately needed our approval. His conciliatory tone in addressing the new Democratic majority was unprecedented and he seemed to be reaching out, even flirting with compromise.
However, Bush was very careful to skirt the negative aspects of the war in Iraq and in fact, barely even mentioned our fallen soldiers but as usual, made multiple attempts to link the conflict to 9/11. The truth of the matter is that until Bush incorrectly and irresponsibly linked terrorism and Iraq these were drastically separate issues. The President?s argument that Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror still rings hollow, as did his assertion that his proposed troop surge in Baghdad will enable the Iraqi government to pacify their troubled people.
?This is not the fight that we entered, but it is the fight that we are in.? This is yet another chilling example of Bush?s refusal to face the obvious. The ?fight that we are in? is precisely ?the fight that we entered?. How is it any different? It is no surprise to anyone except those within this administration that the Iraqi ?insurgents? are not now nor have they ever been pleased with Uncle Sam invading their country and attempting to shove our own ideas of how they should live their lives down their throats. "America is still at war," Bush declared last night, arguing that we have to "take the fight to the enemy." This analysis is clearly too simplistic as most of those fighting us are not out to destroy America, they are out to eject us from their country. Our presence does not pacify them, it insults and inflames them.
The invasion of Iraq was a double strategic blunder. First, it was a diversion from, not a response to, the war against international terrorism. Second, it has tied down our military in a costly occupation, fighting an insurgency that has strengthened not only the Shia population of Iraq, but also in Iran. America needs and deserves a real debate about all these issues, and about our strategy in Iraq itself. The key question facing us is how long we should be expected to occupy Iraq. Someday we are going to leave and most Americans want us to finish this mission and come home, as long as we do not leave even greater chaos behind. The Administration has never shared with us a specific approach of its own.
The Administration has repeatedly responded to legitimate queries about when, and how, we will extricate ourselves from this mess into an all-purpose, self-serving slogan. It is aimed not at answering the public's growing concern, but at smearing those that raise these questions. Over and over, all we hear from this camp is ?Cut and run!? Now the President is mounting what is the latest "surge" against the unseen enemy, the umpteenth of its kind, is to be called A New Way Forward which is not to be confused with the February 2006, Operation Together Forward. The President has not been talking about how Operation New Way Forward is to be paid for. Some of it will be paid for in our young people's lives, of course, but as for the money, Congress is to appropriate it, the Treasury Department is to borrow it from China and Mr. Bush will spend it.
National security policy under the Bush-Cheney Administration is and has been in total disarray. There is in fact, no end in sight to the conflict in Iraq, the Middle East is out of control, Al Qaeda is stronger today than it was six years ago, and homeland security is being neglected. These difficulties have come about, in large part, because those who are leading us lack the kind of strategic vision that has served our country so well in past eras.
In the Democrat?s response to the Presidents speech, Sen. Jim Webb referred to how Dwight Eisenhower responded when faced with the ?bloody stalemate? that was the Korean War. "When comes the end?" asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. Eisenhower had a view on this sort of thinking, too. In 1952, with the Korean conflict in only its second year, he railed against those who backed a set deadline for withdrawal, but argued just as forcefully against those content to say that ?nothing can be done to speed a secure peace.? This, he said, was to say that the ?strongest nation in the history of freedom can only wait and wait and wait.? However, the waiting frustrated Eisenhower, and he pledged to bring ?an early and honorable end? to the Korean War. Once in office, he sided with those who wished to end the conflict at the 38th parallel rather than push northward to roust the communists. The armistice was signed just six months after Ike took office.
Few Americans called Dwight Eisenhower unpatriotic in the summer of 1952 when he criticized the Truman Administration for its conduct of the Korean War. It?s appropriate in this era where Generals who speak out are accused of betrayal, to quote the five star General who became our president. Eisenhower understood, as today's leaders fail to understand, that wars end in only two ways. Either one side defeats the other militarily, with the vanquished forced to submit to the victor's terms of surrender. Or there is a negotiated settlement that results in total victory for none, but ends a war no one has truly won. We know that the ?war on terror? has no endpoint; the President himself has said so. There will be no treaties signed with terrorists, or with the ?insurgents? who bedevil us in Iraq. We know, too, that the U.S. military occupation of Iraq is unsustainable in the long run. So we must take all steps necessary to shorten its run.
What Eisenhower understood is that ultimately, the goal of war is supposed to be peace. It is a word uttered rarely, if at all, in today's arguments about Iraq. Negotiations, while difficult, controversial and unsatisfying to many in their terms, ended both the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. The settlements were agreed to by Republican presidents Eisenhower and Richard Nixon and not, it must be noted, by Democrats who supposedly favor ?cut and run.? Our current president seems to define the absence of war as capitulation, and conducts his politics on that basis. But his predecessors understood that the absence of war can also be defined as peace.
But what is it that unifies the United States? By the end of President Bush's State of the Union address, it was clear that the unifying force upon which this administration continues to depend is fear. Fear of terrorists and purveyors of evil who wish to harm or destroy our civilization. The attempt to scare Americans back into line, and into silence, was evident in the President's invocations of the horrors of September 11th and his dire warnings that more horrors await us if the US withdraws from Iraq and leaves it to the terrorists.
Should we be terrorized by such discourses into accepting the views and interests of a small group of men, led by President Bush and Vice President Cheney? Should we leave life and death decisions about war and peace to people who have never been in a combat zone, who have shredded the Geneva Conventions and undermined international and multilateral frameworks of peace keeping and diplomacy while filling the coffers of corporations and special interest groups?
The United States was founded to be a state of laws, not of men. Bush and those closest to him have moved America far from this ideal. They have done so by deceiving the public, passing laws that undermine the values of a great democracy and a just society, and dampening debate and media coverage by equating criticism of the administration with a lack of patriotism or a dearth of resolve in facing the dangerous terrorists, all of whom, they would have us believe, live in Iraq.
The State of our Union is not good. The Union of our State requires clear thinking, courageous decisions, and humility in the face of mistakes that have destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. The new members of Congress, as well as the people who voted for them, should resist the easy escape of uniting Americans on the basis of fear, blind pride, ignorance and intolerance. The State of our Union can be strengthened and renewed only with clear thinking, sane policies, mature behavior, and a return to the rule of law at home and abroad. We the people can do this. We must do it: President Bush has amply demonstrated that he cannot.
