Centerfield

I thought he was "on" tonight in terms of the delivery and tone. It was one of the most well-delivered speeches I've seen him give. I also thought he was good on the overarching ideas -- the goals and ideals we have in fighting the war on terror.

I disagree when it comes to the nitty-gritty, though. I see a plan with step #1 being transfer of sovereignty to a people that doesn't like or trust us much anymore. Step #2 is establishing security -- something we can only do with their permission after we transfer authority. The later steps involve a laundry-list of projects the president said we will do "in cooperation" with the Iraqis.

How long after we transfer authority June 30 will the Iraqi's choose to work with us? If they do, will the government elected in January work with us?

I think the former is possible, but the latter unlikely.

That's why step 1 needs to be a combination of building international support (step 3 in Bush's plan) and transferring authority. We need a "new face" on the effort, and it needs to come into existence during the next 6 months, so the elected, sovereign power in Iraq has someone to deal with who's palatable to Iraqi sensibilities.

If the Iraqi's elect an anti-American government in January, the president's plan is basically kaput. We don't know if they'll do that or not. But we're not prepared, apparently, for that distinctly possible contingency.

I thought the President was on tonight also... For the first time since he spoke at the Statue of Liberty on the anniversary of September 11th I thought he was candid, open, direct, and reasonable about what his administration's plan was for Iraq.

The five point plan represents to me what I love about George W. Bush regardless of our disagreements: his leadership. He without a doubt provided a direction for this conflict, and one might argue that he tied his Presidency to the completion of those five points.

The most important part of the speech was when the President pointed out that he did not send troops to Iraq to make Iraqis American; he sent them there to make them free. I think this is important because until now the vision of Iraq that has been portrayed by this administration has been an eventual Jeffersonian Democracy which may not be realistic or plausible. Although I think some form of election will occur and the Iraqi government will be a representative one, it more than likely will not look like what most Americans might expect. The talking heads pointed out afterward that the word "democracy" was only used one time tonight.

I also appreciated the President's honesty that the violence would continue, that there where unintended consequences of the war, but most importantly, that the reasoning behind freeing the Iraqi people is solely because there needs to be a free, elected, and American friendly government within the Middle East. This war was not about WMD's, it was about providing freedom to those who did not have it, and advancing a way of life that did not breed hate and terror. Those who say that the war brought terrorists to Iraq are right. One might ask though, if this war does not help to defeat al Qaeda than why are they in Iraq helping to ensure that the transfer to a sovereign representative government doesn't take place?

Finally, with the economy improving, the President took John Kerry's final issue. The Senator will no longer be able to say that the way to fight this war is to go the UN and NATO because it is already going to be done, and by the looks of things a multi-national resolution of support is likely to be passed. If John Kerry is President it will have nothing to do with John Kerry, and only because the plan that was laid out tonight failed.

It's true that the president is going to the U.N. -- for a new resolution, and to put together the interim government. I think that's very shrewd.

I'm curious about the NATO part of it, though. He mentioned that in step 3 of his plan. Sovereignty will transfer in a month, and elections happen in perhaps 7 months. If the president is serious about implementing a NATO command in Iraq during the next seven months, that's exceptional. But if he doesn't go after it quickly, it won't happen before January -- and at that point, we don't even have the authority to decide what military forces are in Iraq.

The elected Iraqi government would be unlikely to grant us that authority.

The president mentioned a NATO summit and the possibility of getting more help from NATO. He hasn't suggested -- or, so far as we know, pursued -- the one thing that might help in Iraq. Namely, a transfer of military authority to NATO. A new face on the occupying forces.

It would be a largely symbolic gesture -- we'd still make the decisions -- but perhaps make it possible for elected Iraqis to work with the predominant security forces in their country.

Why is it shrewd for him to go the UN? I don't think it is shrewd at all, but maybe I am missing something.

By the words "the one thing that might help" it is apparent that you think things are pretty lost. I don't get this impression, and I have doubts that this speech would have happened if the implemenation of the plan where not possible. I think they are smart enough to know that it would cost them the Presidency which I do believe is the first consideration of this administration.

One could argue that the speech was an act of desperation, but I don't think the administration is desperate yet.

Mathew,

Two thoughts.

First, you seem conflicted about the new UN resolution. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that (1) working with the UN has been the Bush agenda all along (this relates more to a comment you posted to a different post today), (2) by offering a new UN resolution Bush is pulling the rug out from under Kerry, and (3) returning to the UN is not necessarily a good idea. I am curious as to whether you think that serious re-engagement with the UN is genuinely wise and, if so, how we should proceed. Personally, I think that we have to make every attempt to reduce our international isolation if we can do so without materially hindering our national security interests.

Second, I supported this war from the start, but I think that your statement that "[t]his war was not about WMD's, it was about providing freedom to those who did not have it, and advancing a way of life that did not breed hate and terror" is not supportable. That case could have been made, but it wasn't. I decided that this war was the right thing to do because (1) the truce that ended the first Gulf War put the burden of proof on Saddam to demonstrate that he had disarmed, (2) he repeatedly repudiated those terms (and UN resolutions), and (3) unless he was willing to fulfill Iraq's obligations under the truce and the UN obligations, particularly after the events of 9/11, it would be negligent for a US president not to act. This war was sold on the WMD issue, and that issue will not go away. I don't hold necessarily Bush responsible for the fact that he might have received bad information. But he will lose me if he claims it was never the issue in the first place.

Why is it shrewd for him to go the UN? I don't think it is shrewd at all, but maybe I am missing something.

Because if the UN representative wasn't negotiating to select the interim government, then the U.S. would be selecting it -- and it wouldn't be legitimate in the eyes of a lot of Iraqis.

When June 30th occurs, a fair number of Iraqis will look at the newly appointed government and ask a basic question -- namely, is it Iraq's government, or is it the United States' government?

That's an important question, no?

Todd,

I didn't meant to imply that I was opposed to going to the UN and don't understand when or where I made that argument. I think it is sad that this is the center of John Kerry's plan for Iraq and wish he would run on something other than he is not George W. Bush, but I do not oppose going to the UN... I never have.

I agreed with Powell that we should have tried before the war, France and Germany screwed it up and it didn't work, and now I think we should try after the war. In fact, I think we have waited too long. I just think that because we chose to go it alone without the UN does not mean that it should not be recognized that we tried. It is not as if John Kerry is the first person to say, hey, why don't we try and get interational suppor...

I agree totally that Saddam's violations of UN resolutions was a key aspect of the decision, but that alone would not have justified war. There is a bigger picture here, and it has more to do with reforming the Middle East than how many promises Saddam broke or how many weapons he had, and I have no problem with that.

I am not claiming that WMDs was not an issue, nor do I think that is what Bush is doing, I just do not buy that it was ever the central reason for war and only the most politically expedient one. And again, I have no problem with that, I only wish that the WMD argument would have been presented as part of the decision making process instead as the central part of it.

How should we proceed? By doing what Bush is doing now... Going to the UN with a resolution and negotiating the terms. I agree though with Bill that international progress will be determined more at a NATO summit than it will at the UN.

Will,

I agree that is not only an important question but thee most important question, and I was convinced last night that the administration understood that.

I see you where you are going with the whole shrewd statement, but I don't neccesarily agree. I have no problem with the US and Britian picking the government alone along with the governing council as long as that is truly what is going on and it is not solely an American process.

I also am not sure about your insistance that all of Iraq hates America and once a government is in place we will be asked to leave... or that the interim government will be looked upon as illegitamite, or as a Bush puppet. I think there is a possibility that scenario will exist, and that is definetely a problem, but I don't understand how we proceed in another way. What else can we do but give them the power to govern and let our fate lie where it may? Would it be morally justifiable to do anything different?

I didn't see the speech, but did he actually say the war wasn't about WMD but was only about freeing the Iraqi people and installing a pro-American government? That's certainly not what he said before the war. Now he is saying that the war was about bringing in a pro-American government. That's arguably a legitimate goal, but it would have been nice if he had couched in those terms before the war instead of scaring us with stories of Saddam with WMD. I never thought the war was about WMD, but he is apparently confirming that he intentionally misled the country.

I got caught up and missed the speech as well. If Bush said the war wasn't about WMD, then he's admitting he lied when he said it was about WMD last year. Like someone else said, that case could have been made, but it wasn't. If Bush is going to address the WMD issue, he should be pretty straightforward and clear about it instead of trying to play a rhetorical shell game. But, like I said: IF. Didn't see the speech.

My hopes for something resembling success in Iraq rely on the continued pragmatic tolerance of the Iraqi general public and their various leaders. Things may well go awry, in any of the ways others have described. It's a finesse here. But some of the chicken littlers predicting a quick devolution to a rabid anti-american government might be surprised. Many of the people involved in the current council are powerful Iraqi stakeholders, and none of them wants a devolution into chaos.

And most important, let's follow the money. If we go, we take our dough and our troops with us. So even if the new "government" doesn't like us and wishes they could just boot us out, are they so foolish as to sacrifice their nation's security and turn their backs on their primary reconstruction investor? Messy pragmatic tolerance. think about it.

Okay, okay, okay... BUSH DID NOT SAY THAT THIS WAR WAS NOT ABOUT WMD's... I am saying that this war was not about WMD's, or at least that it was not the central reason. I don't think they lied, I think they re-arranged the priorities they articulated to the American public based on political expediency, and I agree with MWS and Brian that his was dumb, and would have hoped that they would have been completely up front to begin with, which I never though they where.

Sully on the Speech (I agree):

NOT BAD: The president's speech last night gets a B+ rating from yours truly. He did much of what he needed to do, even explaining what has gone on in Fallujah and Karbala and Kufa. It began abruptly, but soon settled down. The critical point that the swift victory over Saddam paradoxically made the occupation more difficult - because Saddam's minions were able to escape, melt into the population and fight another day - was made early on. Bush could have made more of it - and should do in the weeks ahead. People need to be reminded who the enemy is; and why he's worth fighting. My own sense of what was new was the clear and emphatic declaration that the transfer of sovereignty June 30 will be real. That's critical - and critical to deliver. I also liked the way the president unapologetically linked what we are doing in Iraq with the broader war on terror. Critics like to believe that Saddam was somehow utterly unconnected to broader terror, had no potential to enable it, and was too secular to cooperate with al Qaeda. They're wrong on all counts. In the wake of 9/11, a Saddam-Zarqawi alliance would have been a terrible threat. Now we have a Baathist-Zarqawi insurgency. And we have had a year to defeat it. Threading the needle of sovereignty, transfer of power, battling terrorism and coordinating elections is still a massive undertaking. But I was reassured by the president's speech. It's a beginning. He now has to make a version of it again and again and again. He is up against a press corps determined to make this transition fail, in order to defeat a Bush presidency. He will need true grit to withstand it.

Mathew -- I might be overemphasizing the point. I don't think we know what the looming Iraqi electoral process will bring. We might muddle through as a tacitly accepted partner ... or we might be asked to leave.

We have to wonder, I think, whether firebrands like Sadr will have relative success through the electoral process, how the supporters of Sistani will fare, and, furthermore, whether the more moderate factions are likely to tacitly accept our presence for a while.

All of these questions are out there. There's evidence on both sides, from our recent ability to work with moderate clerics in the south in collective opposition to Sadr, to opinion polls that show pretty sweeping dislike for us -- and even fairly significant support for armed resistance.

I'm suggesting, basically, that we're unprepared for the negative scenario, and that it basically threatens our whole mission.

The suggestion made by guys like Biden that we turn the occupation into a NATO operation may or may not be practical. He said on MSNBC last night that he sensed real foreign interest in it a couple months ago, and some interest a few weeks ago, but that interest is waning.

It may or may not be practical. But it's the kind of option that could, in the negative scenario -- a scenario of rising anti-Americanism -- prevent total collapse of our mission in the next six months.

I see it, therefore, as a "stay the course" type option. The president risks failure in the medium-term. Liberals have long risked short-term failure with their zig-zag policies and lack of support for the operation.

I suspect there's been a third option that builds a more solid foundation for our operation. I don't know if it's still viable -- or even if it ever was. But I don't sense, honestly, that the president has ever been dynamic or engaged enough with the world to fully explore those options.

I often think Bush needs to have more conversations with his father. Dad knows how to do this stuff.

I didn't bother watching the speech. It seems most people have already made up their minds about the decision to go to war and about Bush's handling of the war.

We have to remember that terrorists are going to keep flooding into that country. While they'll continue to cause problems now and again, they're going to be especially dangerous during the transfer of power on June 30, near the November elections, and near the first Iraqi elections.

That's why it's important to remember that Iraq is part of the larger war on terrorism and is meant to bring long-term, substantive change to the Middle East. In the long run, the skirmishes in Fallujah will be a footnote in the broader war.

That's really a fundamental point, Staunch Moderate -- one that gets downplayed on the left, I think. Iraq is, today, a key part of the war on terror -- perhaps the focal point, as the president suggests.

Whether it was before this operation or not, we are hurting ourselves by not treating it as such now. We have to win this thing, and we need to convince the people who thought it was misguided (a group to which I belong) to see it through now. Sacrifices will be necessary to succeed, and we have to go ahead and make them.

Rather than parrot what others have said, I’ll add the political angle.

For the last few weeks based on polling and the news, the general question was being framed as, “how do we get out of this mess?” Some pundits have even speculated that
June 30th would be Bush’s “Mission Accomplished II”, the assertion that he wants to claim victory and then de-couple himself from Iraq. While John Kerry has said we need to “succeed in Iraq”, he’s emphasized that he’ll get the troops home as quickly as can be accomplished, and maybe not directly, but many of his supporters have said that Iraq has been a distraction on the war on terror.

Bush, last night, really didn’t tell Americans when we would be out of Iraq. Instead, he emphasized why we should be in Iraq, why we should effectively stay the course, and what the importance he believes a stable democracy will have in the larger war on terrorism.

Here’s the most interesting part of the speech in my point of view:

“We believe that when all Middle Eastern peoples are finally allowed to live and think and work and worship as free men and women, they will reclaim the greatness of their own heritage. And when that day comes, the bitterness and burning hatreds that feed terrorism will fade and die away.”

An important note about that line is that he didn’t say “all Iraqi people”, he said “ALL Middle Eastern peoples”. What I think he is essentially saying is that we won’t “win” the war on terror until “all” of the Middle East is basically free of repression. For better or worse, this is the PNAC philosophy. To the people that think Bush is an imperialist, that probably doesn’t sit too well and it is an indication that he’ll next invade Iran, Syria, etc. I think it is extremely unlikely we will invade another Middle Eastern country, but I do think there is some truth to Bush’s broader assumption about terrorism and liberty.

I think he’s going to continue to make the case that this is his plan and this is why he should be “re-hired” in November. It will be interesting to see what John Kerry’s vision will be in comparison, and how the debate will play out. If Bush is effective at re-framing this debate, then John Kerry will likely have to be more specific and by doing so, Kerry will undoubtedly piss off some part of his base. I hope this becomes the debate; it will decide my vote in November.

Will,

Exactly! Brilliant!

Some good points made previously here, so no sense repeating. Theoretical re a mess now. The Handover looks like a roll of the dice.

All grandiose delusions --off the U.S. taxpayers.
Anyone for reality?
Just who gets more of millions to billions in going to be spent over there? All the corporations such Halliburton and "foreign" corporations? So, we are not even assured oil supplies over our lifetimes?

Now, we're going to pay for building a new state of the art prison there. And so on, and so on, empire building without a national vote --and by spending American taxpayers' moneys.

Anyone with enough courage to answer the real life questions?

Will, thanks for that excerpt. That's a nice condensation of what I think as well, or at least hope. That free people with opportunity and justice and predictability will turn away from fundamentalist terrorism.

And sure, it might be unrealisitc, or much messier in the real world, and it sure will cost a lot, in lives, time, patience, and money. In all our resources. But anyone who brings those up as unreasonable prices needs to come up with a better alternative than realpolitk engagement that lets terrorism fester indefinitely as we hope we can contain it.

This latter, IMO, is a very crappy plan Z that fails to recognize our current circumstances as a a tipping point for western civilization, which can never stay the same size, only grow or shrink.

Feel strongly that we should have gotten illegals out of here, kept people out of here, and taken care of U.S. --first and foremost in all ways. Rooting out the cancer of terroritsts elsewhere was a given.