I think I may be too nice. This wasn't written without reading any commentary on the war, so take it as it is. Hopefully someone finds it insightful...
First, some quotes.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
Such such a statement is refreshing, in some senses. Perhaps in the future, we will be able to get out of the passive voice and into the active voice, and Bush will be able to say "I made mistakes." Who made these mistakes that Bush takes responsibility for? "Mistakes were made."
The abuse of language has been and still is so prevalent throughout this entire war.
Nevertheless, this comment is light years beyond his past stubbornness to accept any sort of responsibility. It took how long?
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.
This is nonsense. They failed because, rather simply, they hate us and don’t want us there. These are not stupid people living in Iraq. Over lunch with Dr Splaine last month, he made the seemingly obvious point that, were a foreign power in our country after deposing of our corrupt leader (ahem), we would not be sitting around thanking them, we’d be figuring out, more or less, how to kill them or at the very least, make them leave. What better way than by killing them?
So America will change our strategy
It wasn’t too long that the official line was change tactics, not strategy. This is, in all honesty, good to hear. What’s the strategy then?
This will require increasing American force levels.
A military tactic change. Hmm.
I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people. And it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
This is not a new line, and it is obviously in line what many people, myself included, want: us out of this war as soon as possible. Still, it rubs me the wrong way, and I could imagine being an Iraqi it would too. There’s something really irksome about invading a country and then scolding the invaded people with the line that, if they don’t do so and so in their hurrendoulsly difficult position, that us, the invaders, will no longer support them. Three+ years is a long time to be involved in a war. But, three years is not a long time at all historically, and the demands being placed on this new, unstable state are beyond comprehension. This kind of rhetoric is abrasive, but I agree with it's point -- we need to get out. Well, I believe it if one equates the line "follow through on its promises" with "make Iraq peaceful and democratic".
More important to remember is if the Iraq government cannot make things peaceful and Iraq free, it’s less a failure of theirs, than a failure of America’s. This was after all our idea
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life.
Black and white. Good and evil. Unhelpful dualities. Vapid drivel.
They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty.
Honestly, does anyone feel that they live in a better world after this war? A better America? A freer America? I feel more in danger, and there is reason to feel that way, considering Iraq is now a terrorist haven.
Those men and women died for no reason but political hubris and stupidity. Do not couch their deaths in the language of liberty. Let it be known that these young men and women died for a bad idea. They died, if anything, to remind us of the consequences of sheepishly supporting bad leadership, political hubris, and arrogance. And what a stupid reason that is to die. It’s gut-wrenching to write and believe in such a sentence, one that seems so callous and ugly.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom.
Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation.
And, throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. Freedom. Indeed, throughout our history, we have always defied the pessimists. Like in Vietnam, when we fought a war with an ambiguous enemy, for questionable reasons, in difficult terrain, for the idea of freedom. A war we won. Well, no, it seems that we did not defy the pessimists in that case, and they were absolutely right. We lost. Mistake were made. People were killed.
Bush must have missed that history lesson.
Reading a speech such as this is an entirely different experiencing than watching and listening to it. There is no imagery, no flags, no camera work, and no feelings of pity while watching a broken man defend a war which was a mistake and had led to the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people. Instead, you read, and you wrestle only with the words and ideas put forth.
And as I do that I, unfortunately, only further realize how stupid getting into this war was. People are dying in incomprehensible numbers while our political objectives move further out of sight. I don’t write this as a sentimental, emotional distraction away from the question of what to do. I write it because this question must be forthright in our mind at all times. As this war continues to worsen, as freedom becomes buried further under the history of this war and its atrocities, the question of life becomes in my opinion the primary ethical question. How do we stop the killing?
Most today would agree that freedom and an open society are not possible until basic human needs are met: food, shelter, and life. In Iraq we are dealing with these questions at their most basic level right now, and that is at the level of survival. The place is a war zone. People are being killed at unimaginable rates. Before one can even consider feeding one’s family and oneself, one must realize that by leaving the house to go to the market, one could be killed by the "war going on".
It is not appropriate to talk about freedom in such conditions, except maybe to note its absence. If we accept the argument that the existential requirements of life precede discussions of freedom and liberty, then it just outlines even more how wrong it is for Bush to couch his war in a fight for freedom. It seems less a fight for freedom than a fight for life.
Enough of that.
It is good to hear Bush admit that the responsibility of mistakes lie with him. It is upsetting that he must pervert language to not identify him as the subject directly responsible for such mistakes — only that the responsibility for them lies with him.
That said, it too is refreshing to hear him talk of a a change in strategy and not tactics.
But that is all that is refreshing about this speech, and it’s an impoverished refreshment: it is of words only. Words are important, indeed. But the actions proposed in his speech do not align with his calls for strategic change.
The strategy is still broken and Bush does not suggest any change. It’s more of the same — a change in military tactics in a war that’s primary battlefront is, to use their own words, the hearts and minds of the people who live in Iraq. And the way to win those hearts and minds (I cringe as I type that overused phrase) is to disappear. In that sense, it’s less a winning over than a responsible exit. Consider a romantic relationship that has obviously failed. When one half of that relationship still wants it to go on, but the other has ended it, the only thing the dumped person can do to win that person’s heart and mind is to get out of their life until they are invited back in a different role, the role of friend. Or in this situation, ally.
Bush and his supporters got, as he so aptly said, "whooped", and it is obvious why–the war. Bush had no choice but to acknowledge this, and in his address he does. But that is all he does. His poor leadership abilities and lack of backbone are laid bare by his empty words and his stubbornness to effect real change. All he offers is a military adjustment, one that is doomed to failure.
Writing is a heuristic endeavor, particularly this kind of writing. When I started this entry I was less sure how I felt about the correct future path. After writing, I feel confident to say that we must get out of Iraq. To quote Ivan Illich, "to hell with good intentions!" Our good intentions, Bush’s good intentions, have led us no where but further down a road closer to hell. We have caused and are causing harm. I see no way to make things better while we are there. And if there are, Bush did not suggest them. In other words, I see no way to alleviate the harm we’ve caused than to leave, and shamefully walk back down the road of failure where we can only realize, time and again, the harm we have caused.
Perhaps in a generation’s time these kind of wars wars will not be fought for stupid reasons on the basis of lies. Third’s a charm, right? I’m not counting on it.