The Real Debate
You won’t find most of this in your newspaper this morning, due to space and possibly other considerations. What the president said:
As President, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the terrorists on the front lines in Iraq. I’ve given our troops in Iraq clear objectives. And as they risk their lives to achieve these objectives, they need to know they have the unwavering support from the Commander-in-Chief, and they do. And they need the enemy to know that America is not going to back down. So when I speak to the American people about Iraq, I often emphasize the importance of maintaining our resolve and meeting our objectives.
… In my address to the nation in January, I put it this way: If we increase our support at this crucial moment we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home. The real debate over Iraq is between those who think the fight is lost or not worth the cost, and those that believe the fight can be won and that, as difficult as the fight is, the cost of defeat would be far higher.
…
The bottom line is that this is a preliminary report and it comes less than a month after the final reinforcements arrived in Iraq. This September, as Congress has required, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will return to Washington to provide a more comprehensive assessment. By that time, we hope to see further improvement in the positive areas, the beginning of improvement in the negative areas. We’ll also have a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding, and be in a better position to judge where we need to make any adjustments.
I will rely on General Petraeus to give me his recommendations for the appropriate troop levels in Iraq. I will discuss the recommendation with the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will continue consultations with members of the United States Congress from both sides of the aisle, and then I’ll make a decision.
I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region, and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.
The fight in Iraq is part of a broader struggle that’s unfolding across the region. The same region in Iran — the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers. The same Hezbollah terrorists who are waging war against the forces of democracy in Lebanon are training extremists to do the same against coalition forces in Iraq. The same Syrian regime that provides support and sanctuary for Islamic jihad and Hamas has refused to close its airport in Damascus to suicide bombers headed to Iraq. All these extremist groups would be emboldened by a precipitous American withdrawal, which would confuse and frighten friends and allies in the region.
Read the whole thing, and be sure to catch the questions at the end for a view inside the sausage factory.
NYT analysis, Defending an Iraq Strategy in a Race Against Time:
For now, at least, Mr. Bush has rejected the advice of those who have urged him to hint at a timeline for withdrawal, concluding that to follow that course would only have emboldened Republican rebels and others in Congress to go even further in trying to reshape his strategy.
Like NYT, for example. And Congress, also counseling a hint. (Despite the meaninglessness of this vote, if your newspaper runs straight AP copy, you may know more about this today than what our wartime commander-in-chief had to say.)
Captain’s Quarters navigates through Congress’ latest futile surrender bid.
Another quarter heard from, via HotAir. Iraqi father/cab driver:
“If I don’t see U.S. forces in front of me, I feel scared.”
Here’s someone else who’s in the middle of it. Michael Yon at Hugh Hewitt:
HH: I’m joined now by satellite phone from Baghdad by intrepid reporter Michael Yon. He’s actually in Baquba. Michael, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, always a pleasure to speak with you. How goes the fighting on the ground?
MY: Well, it’s really slowed down here in Baquba, Hugh. I was just in the TOC or the headquarters about fifteen minutes ago before I came on the show, and they were like the Maytag repairmen here. I mean, Baquba has just…you know, it was a very serious fight when it started, Operation Arrowhead Ripper on the 19th of June, I came in with them, but it quickly abated. The people have just turned against al Qaeda here …
HH: Now Michael Yon, a lot of people don’t know the significance of Baquba. And so can you explain what peace in Baquba means for the larger war effort?MY: Well, it’s huge, because al Qaeda had claimed Baquba as their capitol, their worldwide capitol. And you might recall one of the things that kind of upsets people about my reporting is I said Iraq was in a civil war, and I said that way back in February of 2005 … you could see it, and you could see al Qaeda was trying to foment that civil war, because that’s their underlying strategy, is to do that. And so getting, fracturing al Qaeda here, and al Qaeda alienating so many Iraqis, it’s helping us to put a damper on the civil war.
HH: Now yesterday, Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate that the surge has failed. Do you think there’s any factual basis for making that assertion, Michael Yon, from what you’ve seen in Iraq over the last many months?
MY: He’s wrong, he’s wrong. It has absolutely not failed, and in fact, I’m finally willing to say it in public. I feel like it’s starting to succeed. And you know, I’m kind of stretching a little bit, because we haven’t gone too far into it, but I can see it from my travels around, for instance, in Anbar and out here in Diyala Province as well. Baghdad’s still very problematic. But there’s other areas where you can clearly see that there is a positive effect. And the first and foremost thing we have to do is knock down al Qaeda. And with them alienating so many Iraqis, I mean, they’re almost doing it for us. I mean, yeah, it takes military might to finally like wipe them out of Baquba, but it’s working. I mean, I sense that the surge is working. Reid is just wrong.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:58 am on Friday, July 13, 2007
31 Responses to “The Real Debate”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:44 am
The American public isn’t listening to GWB anymore. One reason might be that he can’t get beyond the MSM filter, as the above demonstrates. But, at least in part, it’s Bush’s own fault. Beyond his own inability to speak well — a terrible handicap in a culture like ours — he and his crowd of Texas loyalists and his father’s old handlers set out in a calculated way to make an enemy of the media. Perhaps they knew a Republican would never get a fair shake, but they ended up making a bad situation much worse.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Too bad the majority of the MSM clamps down on President Bush’s message, and anything supporting it. They really don’t care if there’s a blood bath in the Middle East.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Reading the questions from the press, one gets the feeling that they are pushing to make a reality that isn’t real, real. They seem to believe that If they say it enough, it will be so. “And the press said, let their be failure, and there was failure.” Hubris, indeed.
One could wish that the president would cite the fact that the Founding Fathers made the president the CinC for a reason. The idea that Congress ought to micro-manage the military in a time of war is frightening beyond words. Considering their incompetent performance in those areas where they have authority, giving them the power to run a war is a formula for failure and defeat. They’ve proven the point in their actions to date.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Nice to see Michael Yon has come out of the closet.
The tiny minority who still support the Iraq fiasco now think funding Sunni terrorist groups will lead to a “win”?
And you wonder why most Americans (and Iraqis) have just stopped listening to your insane rants?
July 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
The “sausage factory” is the perfect name for the these pressroom briefings–all those inane boxed questions by jaded leftist journalists totally out of touch with what going on in Iraq or the strategy as it unfolds.
Bush actually came across as well informed and able to think on his feet on complex military and civilian matters. Of course, the only sound bite of his that came out of the sausage grinder was “President Bush described it as an ‘ugly war’.
I especially like Bush’s slap at the dem cong Congress and it’s inabiltiy to meet any of its own “benchmarks”.
“Q Do you have confidence in them?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m almost through with the first one; I’ll come back to the second one.
And so I’ll continue to urge the Iraqis to show us that they’re capable of passing legislation. But it’s not just us, it’s the Iraqi people. And what really matters is whether or not life is improving for the Iraqi people on the ground.
And, yes, I’ve got confidence in them, but I also understand how difficult it is. I’m not making excuses, but it is hard. It’s hard work for them to get law passed. And sometimes it’s hard work for people to get law passed here. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to work to achieve an objective, which is a government that is able to provide security for its people and provide basic services, and, as importantly, serve as an ally against these extremists and radicals.”
This could have been a nod to Rush:
There was a funny article by Rush Limbaugh posted on this theme posted at realclearpolitics the other day.
Democrat Congress Has Failed
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071007/content/01125114.guest.html
July 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I am 55 years old. I can remember when people were talking about when we could leave South Korea and if it would ever be a decent country. I can even remember hearing people complain about how much aid we had given Europe and Japan and how utterly hopeless all those people were. No one even questions the sacrifices that were made then anymore. It is just a given that is was worth it. Someday the same might be true of Iraq if people let it happen. But so far, it has been a political football, something for the likes of Harry Reid to use in a press conference. The fate of the people of that country is not even real to a lot of these critics. I do think their fate is real to Bush.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Nice try, Terrye.
The “occupation” of Japan and Germany ended before you were born.
We left our troops their to defend ourselves against the Soviet “threat.”
Why they are still there is a mystery, though.
Has the military-industrial complex come up with a replacement for the great “Islomofascist threat” yet?
Gonna be hard to keep that $650 billion a year in pork flowing without a good bogeyman once we leave Iraq…
July 13th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
We left our troops their to defend ourselves against the Soviet “threat.”
Because nuclear incinerated troops are so combat effective right?
July 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Jules,
You go through the trouble of putting up good posts that cite or contain information that supports the point you’re making. You get some thoughtful people who have given some coherent and logical consideration to the events and information flow in the world at large. They may be right or wrong but they come here and express their thoughts and opinions about the posted subject and both teach and learn as a result. Now and then folks come by who are not so coherent in thought or logical in consideration but who make and defend their position.
Here’s my question. What possible reason is there to allow someone who has absolutely nothing to say on topic sidetrack each conversation? It’s gotten really old.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Oldman,
Don’t you mean you don’t want anyone who doesn’t believe the neocon mythology posting here?
The historical half truths an outright lies you guys base your worldview on are soooo fragile, ain’t they?
July 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I’ll even help you out a bit this time, old man:
Here’s a history of one of our Constabulary units that patrolled Germany from the beginning of the post-WWII occupation to the start of the defense against the Soviets:
“On 10 November, 1950, Maj. Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, U.S. Commander of Berlin, Col. Maurice W. Daniel, Commanding Officer, Berlin Military Post, and Lt. Col. Charlie Y. Talbott, the fifth and last Commanding Officer, 16th Constabulary Squadron [Separate], passed the colors while trooping the line as the 16th Squadron held its last parade at McNair Barracks. Although the 16th Squadron was deactivated that year to become the 1st Battalion of the newly formed 6th Infantry Regiment, it will long be remembered throughout the Berlin community as the fines unit in that city.
With this reorganization, the U.S. Army in Europe concluded its period as an occupational force an reoriented itself as a defensive army protecting its sector of West Germany. However, the requirement for Constabulary units still remained; the last of two soldiered on for two years after the deactivation of Constabulary Headquarters until the final Constabulary performed their special mission as the mechanized police force in occupied Germany and admirably lived up to their motto, ‘Mobility, Vigilance, Justice.’”
http://www.cavhooah.com/constabulary.htm
You’re welcome to counter my facts with an idiotic Bush speech or a quote from your favorite John Wayne movie.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
So your point, al-Fie, is that we RWDBs just want to leave our troops in Iraq, not to rid it of al-Qaida, or protect it from meddling Iran, and meddling Syria, and the übermeddling Sauds, but merely to occupy the country for no particular reason? Or are we going to get that tired old argument about stealing oil again — which the whole world already knows we could have just bought from Saddam for a whole lot less than it cost us to “steal” it thus far.
Also, I agree with OldManTyme. It’s getting tiresome having to scratch the same old flea bite time after time.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Terrye drew an analogy using long term troop presence in Korea, Japan, and Germany while addressing the thread topic. You lied about what she said so you could claim she lied and hijack the conversation., Your still running with and building on your lie, and it still has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic.
I asked Jules was why he allows a troll to pollute the conversations here. I didn’t ask the troll. I’m not interested in what the troll says my rationale for asking is. I haven’t been interested in ANYTHING the troll says for quite some time other than pointing out what an abysmally stupid wretch the troll is now and again.
Whether you post your drivel here or not is Jules’ concern. Whether or not I decide that wading through your drool is a price I’ll pay for posting here is mine.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
I skip Alphie. That is the good thing about putting the name of the writer at the TOP of his/her comment. The trouble is, otherwise interesting people answer Alphie, thus wasting their time… and my time.
Anyway. As to Bush FINALLY coming out and saying that indeed he supports Petraeus and that he means what he says (big surprise, he has ALWAYS meant what he said, note the Immigration law)… Having hyperventilated through various crises re the War, I finally decided that Bush sits and waits for the opposition to carry on like the children they are… and then he comes out and… says that he hasn’t changed his mind. In the case of the Iraq war, I consider he is saving the lives of my grandchildren, so again, congratulations to all the Americans who voted for him in 2000 and 2004.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Well said, Terrye. I’m not urprised that your post found no purchase in the barren, polluted soil of al-Fie’s mind.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
My point, Reb, is that the “occupations” of Germany and Japan ended a few years after they began….and they both worked.
We could have pulled out then and they would have been a success.
People that cite them as a reason why we should stay in Iraq are being…less than truthful.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I second that motion, Heather.
Bush is smart to let the whiners (in all flavors and variants) whine, whimper, caterwaul, bloviate, etc. so the public can see exactly what these people stand for. It’s cheaper and more entertaining for the public than engaging in lengthy sedition and treason trials - you get to see the ugly veneer of these people up front and center, and pretty darn smart to let the media foul up the airwaves with their propaganda, and then turn around and surprise the public with the truth. That is one of Bush’s strong suits - a master poker player who plays stupid the first few hands and then shocks the entire table with an all-in move.
I’ll throw a bone to Alphie, however, and say that Bush’s two terms have not been perfect. He is definitely not the worst president we’ve had, but not one of the best, either. The Iraq War has been patchwork; you never know who’s winning or who’s losing without a scorecard, and the enemy plays us like a fiddle with calls to “bring the troops home” through the filter of the media and through car bombs and soldier body counts. While he’s a master poker player, he seems to get way too many tips from his buddies, and seems to go “all in” at the wrong times and turns in his cards early when he’s at an advantage. He also has a proclivity to say, “nothing wrong, everything’s fine here” when you look around and say, “You mean ‘Mission Accomplished’ while there’s a fire raging around us?”
Bush might have fundamental flaws, but his opponents in 2000 and 2004 screamed “boring” and “uncharismatic.” Gore was a natural successor to Clinton, but what ruined his chances were Clinton scandal fatigue and his insistence that the popular vote should be the one that gave him the Presidency, not the Electoral College. John Kerry’s undoing was that he was “reporting for duty” until the veterans who were with him in Vietnam told the truth: Kerry played footsie with the North Vietnam PR machine, which pumped out “bring the troops home” as often as daily body counts. The public also doesn’t like phonies: Kerry took his picture with hamburgers, apple pie, and mom, and after the cameras were off, retired to a roped-off part of the restaurant for Chateaubriand, vintage wine and his strategy team, figuring out how to fool the yokels in the next town.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
the “occupations” of Germany and Japan ended a few years after they began
When was that new German constitution ratified again? Refresh my memory.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Disingenuous. Equivocator. Walking logical fallacy. Disrespectful of persons. Incapable of integrating information. Waste of time pot stirrer.
Ignore the ant.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I think its significant that we captured the self-proclaimed capitol of Al Qaeda. Isn’t taking your enemy’s capitol normally a sign that you’re winning?
Alphie - I made sure to contact my friends in the Neo-Con Oppression Squads about your recent comments. I just needed send one more hippy to Gitmo to get promoted to The MAN level, and you’re it! Thanks - I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.
Now I just to send 25 more for my personal black helicopter!
July 13th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Gee Alphie maybe you can explain how on other posts ( see Jules post about Apache Helicopter pilot rescuing Kiowa pilots) you claim the people who fight against Americans are “courageous peasant farmers” in your eyes but when they team up with the US they are “Sunni Terrorist Groups”?
Alphie - we have seen your type over and over again, we have seen your type of “arguing” over and over again. You are wasting your time and more importantly ours.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Sure nailgun,
Why waste time debating our Iraq policy.?
Everything is under control there, right?
July 14th, 2007 at 12:31 am
The lesson here is don’t try to befriend the media. They have no friends, only masters. Bush lacks the ability and the will to take them on. What would it be like if he gave a presser every evening at 6:30 pm to preempt the talking heads?
July 14th, 2007 at 2:27 am
Terrye–thank you for adding in your historical perspective.
In the Iraq war debate historical perspective is extremely rare. Politicians old enough to have perspective are hiding their knowledge to limit the scope of the debate.
That is why I love Victor Davis Hanson. His historical perspective is peerless. And he has done a Jules style blow torching of the New York Times “The Road Home”. But Dr. Hanson takes it several steps further. He has gone back to the Clinton era to verify the cause for war in a way only he can and that NYT and left take for granted it is all a lie now. Hanson knows better. This is too delicious.
I’m framing this alongside Jules’—“Genocide Preferred”.
“The New York Times Surrenders”
A monument to defeatism on the editorial page
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-07-12vdh.html
P. S. And Heather is right. Just skip to the next writer.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:34 am
“As President, my most solemn responsibility is to keep the American people safe. So on my orders, good men and women are now fighting the terrorists on the front lines in Iraq.”
That works for me. Don’t see any reason to debate it.
As I’ve said before, President Bush and his administration hve done more to fight terrorists (and their state sponsors) than ALL previous administrations put together.
For that, he gets my support.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:39 am
“I’ll throw a bone to Alphie, however, and say that Bush’s two terms have not been perfect. He is definitely not the worst president we’ve had, but not one of the best, either.”
I think he’s done a hell of a job.
I wouldn’t trade one George Bush for a hundred FDRs (worst president in U.S. history).
July 14th, 2007 at 6:58 am
wrong again Alphie we are all happy to debate the war with people just not obvious trolls. Anyone who calls them courageous peasant farmers when they shoot Americans on one post and then apparently anyone siding with the US is a Sunni Terrorist on this post is not trying to debate but desperately point score and ridicule which might be at least interesting if you were good at it.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
@Dave Surls:
To tell you the honest truth, I wouldn’t trade Bush either. For all he does and all the grief he manages to put up with, I agree: he does a masterful job. I apologize if my statement was interpreted the wrong way, and I should have added that in my comment.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I disagree with President Bush’s stance on illegal aliens, so I regard that as a serious flaw in his presidency. But as for the war, I believe he’s done the best anyone could do in the face of the disloyal opposition. It’s war, therefore messy. Only idiots demand perfection.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Nailgun if you want to pursue your project you should link to Mudville Gazette. They have a roundup that would achieve what you desired.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
I’m with RebeccaH on the subject of GWBush. I disagree intensely with his stand on the border and the border runners and I agree intensely with his stand on the war. al-Phies overseas heros and their useful tools in the States might take notice. They’re not riding as high as they would like to be.