Was this:
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. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy, by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom, and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
His full speech can be found here.
No doubt there are indeed many “ordinary people [who] are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children”. But how many of those “ordinary people” would agree with President Bush that the continued American presence in Iraq is a step in that direction? Not many, of course. By far the majority of folks throughout the mideast would take the position that a withdrawal of American forces would actually be a more positive step towards “peace and opportunity for their children”.
Now it’s absolutely true that all those people might be wrong. It may be that the invasion of Iraq will turn out to be a long-term net positive. But that’s not the point. The point is that Bush is (once again) choosing to misrepresent what is quite clearly the mindset of the people in the mideast. They want us out, yet Bush pretends they want us to stay.
It may be a small thing - white lies, and politics as usual - but it really gets under my skin. But I have to admit that just about everything Bush says gets under my skin. To be honest, I can hardly watch him speak.
The problem is that if we keep our soldiers in Iraq they will be siding with radicals no matter what.
There are two sides to this civil war. The sunni insurgents are the former baathist and Sadaam loyalist who along with foreign al-Qaeda arabs are waging war against the US soldiers who they see as occupiers.
The other side is the Iraqui police and army who are led by Shiite Persian soldiers and police officers who are made up of the Mahdi army led by Moktadar Al Sadr, who for a time in 2004 led a rebellion against the US army and had a warrant out for his arrest when the CPA led the govt. Since the Iraqi shiaa took over he has held a key block in parliament and al-maliki owes his power to this Al-Sadr block. Al-Sadr is a Persian loyal to the Ayatollahs in Iran.
So which extermists do we fight with the sunnis and their Al-qaeda links and Saddam loyallists or the extrmists loyal to Mokqtada and Iran. So its Al-Qaeda vs. Iran noone is fighting because they want to be a democracy linked to US. It was obvious from the Sadaam execution that the people running the govt are loyal to Al-Sadr. Is that the guy we want to hitch our fate in the Mid-East to.
As Republican Sen Hagel said This speech was the low point in US foreign affairs since VietNam and all the lies by Bush and Rice ain’t going to change the fact that our boys and girls are dieing to stand up to two rival groups of fanatics.
LaurenceB,
But how many of those “ordinary people” would agree with President Bush that the continued American presence in Iraq is a step in that direction? Not many, of course.
Are you sure? I mean, I know that most people in the middle east were against the Iraq war, but now that we are there and that we are assisting the Iraqi police fight terrorists, I wonder if the majority of middle easterners would still believe that the best thing for Iraq is for us to leave now. Terrorists certainly want us to leave now, but I wonder if ‘ordinary citizens’, those who truly want a better future for themselves and their children, those who believe in democracy and a terror free environment, would the majority of them really want us out now? I don’t think that’s true. Certainly not the Iraqi people themselves. Every single poll I have seen shows the opposite of what you say. I may be wrong though, foreign policy is certainly my weakness which is why I rarely blog on it, but I do remember seeing polls, CBS polls and CNN polls, showing the very opposite of what you say sometime back. Have times changed or is my memory failing me?
Michael,
Things are certainly bad in Iraq, nobody is arguing otherwise, but I do agree with Bush that if we leave now things will be much worse. Atleast if we stay there is hope for a much better future.
HP,
First, go back and read what Bush said. His claim is that Afghans, Palestinians and Lebanese (by implication, all middle easterners) are the ones who want us to stay. He’s not talking about Iraqis; he’s talking about mid eastern Muslims and Arabs. To put it bluntly, this is just absurd. Pakistanis, Palestinians, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, etc. would definitely not be heart-broken if we were to leave Iraq, nor would they consider it a defeat for freedom and liberty. In fact, the opposite is true.
Second, even if he were referring to Iraqis he would be wrong! Despite what you may have heard, polls have consistently shown that the majority of Iraqis would prefer to see us to leave. This is indisputably the case even when Kurds are taken into consideration.
ABCNEWS poll from Feb, 2004:
Presence of coalition forces:
All Iraqis Arabs Kurds
Support 39% 30% 82%
Oppose 51 60 12
Of course, things have gotten much worse since 2004. Here’s a WPO poll from Sep, 2006:
Interesting, I had no idea. I had always thought the opposite. Thanks!
It seems likely that it will get worse if we leave.
However, it seems unlikely that it gets better with us there. I would hate to lose another American life if it likely we lose either way.
I think Bush is running out the clock until the next president comes so he/she can end the war. During the Ford funeral I was reminded that for a time he was known as “the only president to have lost a war”. Of couse he had little to do with the loss in Veitnam, Johnson and to a lesser degree Nixon are the ones who could be hung with the loss. I think Bush is reminded of this. I think in 20 years he wants to be able to sit on his porch in Crawford and say “We’d have one this one if President Hillary or Obama or Giuliani etc had let us finish the job.”
This was evident by the disconnect of this sentence-
“It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.”
And the fact that he only added 15% of the total troops. If he truly was committed to this ideal he would be pushing for another 150,000 troops and a draft. Thats the sacrifice we need now to save this war. As usual Bush’s actions did not match his words.
Worst President Ever.
Michael,
I agree that Bush is not a very good President, but I find it hard to be harsh with him on this particular decision. The fact of the matter is that, at this point, pretty much any course of action is likely to be a failure. That being the case, it’s hard for me to be overly critical - or overly enthusiastic - of any decision.
In other words, although I strongly suspect this new strategy will fail, I expect it may fail only slightly more or less spectacularly than any other - including a complete withdrawal. If that makes any sense.
To put it differently, I would prefer to see a de-escalation than an escalation. But either one would suck.
To put it differently, I would prefer to see a de-escalation than an escalation. But either one would suck.
I think I agree with that statement. Nothing we do is a winner, but it seems to make no sense to put more Americans to death in a losing propisition.
I don’t know what we are trying to accomplish if the ultimate goal is to make the Maliki govt. sustainable, I think 1) it is far-fetched there is no stregnth at all to him 2) he is too close to Al-Sadr who is too close to Iran. So on the one hand Bush seems to be spoiling for a direct fight with Iran which is a much bigger and stronger country than Iraq under Sadaam was after all of the sanctions. On the other hand we are supporting an Iraqi govt that it supported by Iran. It is a paradox, we lose either way and Iran wins either way. The Iranian govt took losses in ‘06 local elections it seems democracy may work against Ahmindejead if we do not interfere. if we take on Iran directly we will inflame Iran’s locals against us and for their govt.
I also know that this is a hole that Bush dug for himself and every move he makes digs him deeper and deeper to date. I have absolutely no reason to think he will get this right when every other decision he made was wrong.
Here is a great article in newsweek that leads me to believe that Al-Maliki is not a govt we should be supporting. It is about the fierce fighting in Baghdad’s Haifa street last week.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16600849/site/newsweek/
Within 24 hours of the start of the fight in Haifa Street, Gen. Razzak Hamza, a Sunni Iraqi Army commander of the Fifth Brigade, Sixth Iraqi Army Division, received a call from the office of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki saying that Hamza was relieved of duty. He was promptly replaced by a Shiite commander. According to Duke, the prime minister’s office blamed Hamza for the violence on Haifa Street, and said he wasn’t doing enough to stop it.
Duke was critical of the move, calling Razzak a “true patriot [who] would go after the bad guys on either side.” Duke, a bald and blue-eyed 20-year Army veteran from Tennessee, believed the meddling from the prime minister’s office was driven by sectarian motives, in part because Razzak had been putting pressure on the Shiite militias. “I think they did it because he’s a Sunni,” says Duke. “They thought he was sympathetic to the insurgents. He’s not.”
Bronx native Lt. Xeon Simpson, 24, led the patrol. He asked his interpreter to read a sign hung outside a Children’s Hospital in Karkh. The gist of its message: “Congratulations President Moqtada al-Sadr for executing Saddam.”
There needs to be a political solution not just a military solution. Bush is being duped by Maliki.