The ‘New Way Forward’?

January 10, 2007

I’m afraid I’ll be away from my computer at 9 (ET), and won’t be able to comment on the president’s national address until morning. But that’s no reason not to have an open thread on the big occasion.

We don’t have to wait for Bush for all the details, though. In advance of the speech, the White House has already released a “fact sheet,” which reportedly highlights the president’s new tactics for the war in Iraq.

1. Let the Iraqis lead;
2. Help Iraqis protect the population;
3. Isolate extremists;
4. Create space for political progress;
5. Diversify political and economic efforts; and
6. Situate the strategy in a regional approach.

Now, call me picky, but except for the additional 21,500 troops, all of these “new fundamental elements” sound an awful lot like the “old fundamental elements.”

Nevertheless, how did the speech strike you? Was it persuasive? How do you think the typical American responded to what Bush had to say?

Or is it too late to even matter anymore?

From what I’ve seen, there is nothing new about this at all. Even putting more troops in has been done before.

My prayers for those in Iraq, Afghanistan and those about to go. Come home safe.

I count myself lucky I did not have W as my C-in-C for my 14 years in service. He does not deserve to lead these men and women.

  • To annotate each and every lie, half-truth, absurdity, and fanciful notion would take a year.

  • OK, just one. “America is engaged in a new struggle.” It was a new struggle 5 years ago. Now it’s an old struggle that’s growing more hoary by the hour.

  • I’ve just peeled myself from the TV. I couldn’t keep watching and hearing such a misnomered approach to what Mr. Bush initiated. Iraq is a mess, by the making of this Administration’s incompetence, and yet, to hear Mr. Bush, and his passive voice approach, we are just now able to offer Iraq a way out. Some policy concepts I reaped from what I witnessed: Bush contends he wants to break the cycle of violence, and he proposes an escalation of occupation to achieve this. I always figured the best way to fight violence to break the vicious cycle of violence is by violence as circular logic – the vicious cycle will not only continue, it will rise as more and more Iraqis begin targeting the occupation force. His equivocation of bipartisanship and policy-achievement ring nefariously hollow. His delivery was trite, and he is trying to sell us shit as shinola. Stop the madness, just say no to Mr. Bush. -Kevo

  • He had an excellent speechwriter, and they had his meds tuned just right, so he sounded good and read the speech better than I thought he could anymore. Beyond that? Feh.

    The plan for Iraq depends on that nice Mr. al-Maliki doing what he’s said he will, though he hasn’t, and doesn’t actually seem to have the power to. Our troops mission will be to help the Iraqis defend the local people, but he failed to describe what happens when the local people are the ones doing the shooting at our troops. In general, he continued to portray the ‘enemy’ as the ‘extremists’ and ‘al Qaida’, and failed to even imagine that there might be a simple power-struggle between various nationalist and sectarian factions, aka civil war.

    Expect more casualties. Success is something never before achieved in the Arab world. Pulling our troops out now would mean keeping them there longer.

    But at least he said it is fair to hold up their views to scrutiny. It’s only taken 6 years, but he’s finally learning that we, the People, have a say. (Though I think it was really just a way of saying any other plan has to prove itself better before he’ll listen.)

  • Bush read every word, so he sounded more coherent than when left to his own thoughts. Wingnuts will swoon. Progressives might have damaged their TVs. Most people probably changed the channel.

    How Bush expects 20.5k troops to do a quarter of what he’s promising is classic Bush delusional.

    For Bush, the presentation was a 4 (out of 5). For any random jerk grabbed from the street, it’s a 2.5. For a Presidential address, 1.

    The problem for Bush is that the country has decided. He desperately needed to score an 11, and he didn’t get close. Bob, the natural male enhancement dude from the TV commercials could probably have done as well. We are ruled by a nitwit.

  • Bush wants to avoid what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan. That defeat emboldened the fundamentalists, among which, a young Osama bin Laden. He has visions of a fall of Saigon in the newspapers while Nuri al Maliki is dragged in the streets like the last Afghan puppet PM for the Soviets.

  • i saw small parts, most with the sound off. when the sound was on, it sounded like an endless string of cliches.

    my question to you all is this: all of the news site headlines or blurbs include him saying that mistakes were made and responsibility rests with him. Did he identify what he believes those mistakes were? I cant help but thinking his mea culpa, such as it is, is a focus-tested trick, with no substantive realization, insight, or introspection behind it. Unless and until he can explain what the mistakes were and how they happened, there is no believing they wont all happen again.

    hopefully, even the sheeple can see that.

  • zeitgeist, he didn’t actually say what mistakes were made, merely that “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.”

  • #11Did he identify what he believes those mistakes were?

    The only specific that I was able to identify was there were not enough troops to ‘hold’ what we had cleaned out. This is what he expects an additional 20.5k to accomplish. I’m not a military guy, but this strikes me as a preposterously low number for the task, unless if the task is limited strictly to Baghdad – while letting the the less scrutinized areas go to seed. It struck me as a classic Bush strategy. All PR for the cameras and no actual work.

  • Most of the commentary on Bush’s speech will focus on his escalation vis-a-vis sending more troops. I would like to focus on something buried deep in the speech. He seems to be laying the ground work for the expansion of the war to Iran.

    The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

    Note the juxtaposition of these sentences which I’ve emphasized. In one breath Bush talks about Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons and in the next he talks about our enemies having a safe haven in Iraq. Finally, he reminds us about 9/11. This is a slightly more subtle version of the “mushroom cloud allusion” they used in the run up to the Iraq war.

    Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

    We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

    Bush’s promise to “seek out and destroy networks providing advanced weaponry and training”  is a threat to  escalate the war to include Iran, which he noted was “providing material support for attacks on American troops”.  This idea is re-enforced by his deployment of a carrier strike group to the region and the deployment of patriot batteries. The insurgents don’t have missles or airplanes hence they present no threat to their neighbors which patriot missiles would protect them from. Syria and Iran have both have an air force and missiles, but I  doubt that either would spontaneously attack Saudi Arabia, for example. However, should the US attack Iran then such attacks might happen in retaliation.

    If Bush went attacks Iran he would certainly create a Constitutional crisis. He would be hard pressed to say that the AUMF gave him the authority to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.  By tying an attack on Iran to defending our troops, he will be able say that the AUMF gave him the authority.

  • I believe they’re planning a Fallujah style clearing of Baghdad neighborhoods suspected of harboring … ummm … who exactly? They assume this can be accomplished with an additional 17,500 troops with tacit acceptance of the fact that a recent surge of (I now despise that word) about 10,000 in Baghdad failed. They are hoping this can work by changing the rules of engagement. This sounds like a scorched earth nightmare scenario to me. It sure as hell isn’t going to lead to winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

    There was also mention of deploying an additional naval battle group to the area. This was mentioned within the context of expanding diplomatic efforts with just about every nation in the region except Syria and Iran. It looks to me like the administration is hell bent on a “military solution” for not just Iraq but for Iran and Syria as well. I guess that conclusion is no surprise.

  • I started watching, but decided it sounded like his speech “new approach” to Iraq, which also sounded like the old “new approach”, and so on and so forth.

    So I flipped over to basketball and watched my Huskers get pummeled by Iowa State.

    I just couldn’t win tonight.

  • Lincoln had the Gettysburg Address. FDR had his Day That Will Live in Infamy speech. Reagan had his Shining City on the Hill speech. Bush’s speech tonight, however, will go down in history as Closing the Barn Doors After the Horses Are Gone.

  • We need to get Bush, and fellow travellers such as McCain, out of power first. Once the big fish have been dealt with, we can deal with smaller players such as Muqtada, Ahmadinejad, and Olmert….

  • Wow, Iowa State won?

    I listened to the speech with soud on and I was not impressed. It’s the same old song with slightly different words

    The part that worries me is the carrier group in the Persian Gulf. I’m sure when the escallation fails Bush’ll launch major air strikes against Iran to cover up his failure.

  • Well, other than the fact that they forgot to add another $1 billion for Halliburton to steal, it was the same ‘ol, same ‘ol.

    I actually missed the first part, but caught it when he started to say “This is the most important ideological struggle of our time blah blah blah … ”

    My memory may not be the best, but I’d bet my son’s college fund* that the later bits were directly copied and pasted from every speech he’s given on the subject for the past three years.

    *Note: the fund currently has about a nickel in it, so don’t get your hopes up.

  • My apologies to the woman NPR reporter who provided some analysis after the fact because I don’t remember her name. But she summed it up as “Stay the course + 21,500”. That was a little easier to grasp than the 2,936 word ramble Shruby took while changing practically nothing.

    Shruby has put himself in a strait jacket and wants us to watch patiently as he demonstrates his most bestest and heartfeltest Houdini impersonation.

    Time burns, Shruby wiggles.

  • Details, details…all I want to know is–how did Laura’s White House library makeover look? I’m so bummed I missed out on seeing the new bookcases. It’s so comforting to know at least one person in the Bush White House has her priorities in place!

  • Jessica Something Tucker. I never heard of her, so NPR finally got a new voice. ‘Bout time. After which, they promptly went to some very old voices: Kagan, who shockingly allowed as how he figured the Pres’ new strategy would work and modestly forgot to mention that he was the one who thought of it (charmingly, Scott Simon didn’t seem to think it was worth noting, either), and John Cornyn of Texas, an extreme right-wingnut with very interesting ideas about child care. If that’s the best they could do in the way of Bush supporters, he’s sunk.

  • All the books in the background were in Bush’s summer reading program. The man is voracious in his pursuit of knowledge!

    Actually he probably didnt know there were that many books in the world! And not one of em was Louis Lamour!

  • Nonesuch@10: “Bush wants to avoid what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan. That defeat emboldened the fundamentalists, among which, a young Osama bin Laden…”

    All Americans want to avoid that which you describe. Unfortunately, that is now and has been the crux of the problem from the start, and one of the many reasons Bush should not have gone into Iraq when and as he did. I hate to keep hammering on that initial decision, but once you start down a path that carries a certain risk, if you don’t address that risk, you increase the odds of encountering it headlong.

    Eventually, you come to the question of whether the outcome you fear is unavoidable. If it isn’t, you might as well turn back and prepare for the worst. If the the outcome you fear is avoidable, is avoiding it worth the cost?

    Bush, having started this mess and lost all credibility on the subject, is not the best source to rely on in answering these questions. The plan he announced tonight — best characterized as too little, too late — will not create a stable Iraq we can walk away from anytime in the foreseeable future.

  • I admire the fortitude of those of you managed to force yourselves to listen/watch any part of that buffonade. I couldn’t; I’ve been spending a lot of time in the crapper, puking my guts out, same as when we were about to invade Iraq for the first time. But I was unable to stop poking at the infected tooth, so here’s the NYT report:

    http://tinyurl.com/ymkprl

    One of my “favourite” quotes:
    “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,” Mr. Bush declared.

    The president put it far more bluntly when leaders of Congress came to visit Mr. Bush at the White House earlier on Wednesday. “I said to Maliki this has to work or you’re out,” the president told the Congressional leaders, according to two officials who were in the room. Pressed on why he thought this strategy would succeed where previous efforts had failed, Mr. Bush shot back: “Because it has to.”

    “Because it has to”…

    “Because it has to”??? Because I, the Decider, said so??? Because I’m the dauphin and you’re no-count dirt???

    *This* is what we have for a leader of a superpower country??? This… this.. puddle of upchuck???

    I know Henry II paid dearly for his “will no one rid me”, but I wish I were Henry II, with Bush my Beckett; I’d gladly crawl on my knees for a far longer distance

  • Oh, and the harbingers of the “surge” are *already* in Baghdad, with 800 scheduled to arrive tomorrow (today, I guess, seeing as Iraq is on a different clock than we are). Not even the 5 days, much less the 3 weeks, of grace…

    Ave Maria, plena gratia, strike the fucktards dead!

  • So, we will have achieved victory when we turn the job of security over to Iraqi forces. Doesn’t anybody remember the ARVN? At least the ARVN’s troop strength didn’t include 30% Vietcong.

  • I recommend that everyone go read Seymore Hersh’s New Yorker story from last April on BushCo’s plans to bomb Iran. The key is that Junior was only using the Iran nuclear program as a pretext for regime change. My guess is that he’s now come up with a new pretext:Iranian interference in Iraq.

    The one thing that jumps out in the article given Junior’s explicit mention of Jomometum is this.

    In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

    An guess who that one Democrat may have been? I think Joe has been along for the ride in Iraq because he knew the car wasn’t stopping until it reached Terhen.

    It’s late and I’m headed off to bed.

  • America you truly Have your very own Dr. Strangelove. Impeach him before it turns into a world war.

  • When Adm. Fallon was nominated to lead CENTCOM, people asked, “Why put a swabbie in charge of grunt operations?”

    Now we know…The official mission is now “Screw Iraq, let’s bomb Iran.”

    • Comments are closed.