The Bush- Iraq Agenda in His Own Words

Back in the news with a flourish, President Bush continues his hard sell of the Iraq War with a speech on Thursday September 13th, 2007.  He left some Republicans wondering what he could possibly be thinking.  He interrupted American television shows to speak from an unpopular mouth about an incredibly unpopular topic like the Iraq War.  Those Republicans wonder what Bush just did to their chances of reelection next year.
                        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/14text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Democrats shouldn't get too hopeful however. 

One thing Bush did subtly do is change the nature of the debate about Iraq.  He took the position that he wants to draw down U.S. troop strength in Iraq. 
Now what do the Democrats say to distinguish themselves? 
They want to draw down faster? 
Pull out tomorrow and watch the chaos and killing ensue? 

Pull out tomorrow and watch the Republicans condemn the Democrats because of their hasty decision.  Watch the pundits say that the Republicans had a plan under President Bush to draw down the troop strength responsibly but the Democrats couldn't wait.  Pull out tomorrow and now watch the Democrats take the blame for the war itself because of this subtle move President Bush made rhetorically in his speech.

President Bush successfully managed to narrow the debate on Capitol Hill, because now Democrats are forced to either discredit what he's said or come up with a different plan than drawing down troops.  If you go back to August 1st 2006 (and this is not the only date you need go back to) the Democrats had already established draw down of troops in Iraq as their position.
               http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/07/31/AR2006073100743.html

Bush took the Democratic position and claimed it for the Republicans.  However, he didn't really claim their position.  President Bush's actual position is far more devious.  What he did was, increase troop levels in January of this year by 5 combat brigades and then not allow regular rotations to take place so that U.S. forces in Iraq were at one time projected to increase to 200,000 by the end of this year.
                                                            http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/316612_secondsurge22.html

In his speech Thursday night, Bush kind of committed to pulling back those 5 combat brigades by July of next year.  In theory (and I'm not a military analyst) this sounds like troop rotation taking place again and not a draw down at all.  For the benefit of you who have never been in the military, as a soldier our government generally commits to you the soldier that you will not live an excessive amount of time in a war zone.  As a soldier, you are expected to live in a war zone (when there is a war to fight) for maybe a year.  Sometimes you may be "asked" to live in that war zone more than once, but the military ethic generally suggests that living in war zones isn't good for soldiers; so the time spent by any one individual should be limited as much as possible.  The military really does look out for its own.  President Bush doesn't, because our troops are now in multiple rotations in Iraq and there is no end in sight.

Amidst all of this, Bush has spun the story to appear that he is suggesting a draw down.  He's now taken ownership the Democrats' plan.  He is now suggesting that he came up with that plan as a result of consulting his military commanders (five years after the war began.)  He's suggesting that he has the best interest of U.S. soldiers in mind as well as the best interest of you and your children as well. 

That's the story that he would like us to take away from his speech and General David Petraeus' visit to Congress last week.

Does the text of his speech Thursday night support these assertions? 

Here's the text of his speech from the Washington Times- so judge for yourself.  Below is my analysis of his speech.
                        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/washington/14text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Bush starts his speech by asserting, "In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people."  There are many interpretations that may be taken from this, but it seems to me that the defining moment here is our war in Iraq.  We invaded unilaterally against the wishes of the United Nations (i.e. the rest of the world.) 

What type of character does that reveal?

Bush refers several times throughout his speech to an unnamed "ally" in Iraq "fighting for its survival."  Who does he mean exactly?  This is not the only instance where Bush is attempting to create a ubiquitous (expensive word for: 'always present and everywhere') entity against which to direct our aggressions and military budget.  This mysterious ever-present enemy is further developed through Bush's repeated use of Al Qaeda in his speech.  (Before I continue, do not assume that I support Al Qaeda.  I don't know anyone in Al Qaeda as I've never personally experienced Al Qaeda.  My point generally emphasizes the latter assertion.)  Al Qaeda is mentioned in Bush's speech 12 times and his speech was only 18 minutes long.  Rhetorically, Al Qaeda is a deceptive device because it is not something that can be identified on a map, by population statistic or through any type of outreach.  Al Qaeda is mysterious and resists any type of positive identification or visual recognition. 

In this sense, Al Qaeda is like fear (it's everywhere and never stops) and one thing that Americans in the U.S. apparently don't lack is fear.

Within the first minute of his speech, President Bush foreshadows his reason for being in Iraq.  This is me reading into his speech but bear with me because I believe Bush really lays out his real plan for why we're in Iraq.  Bush says the reason we are in Iraq is, "a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America."  I'm going to assume that "a more hopeful Middle East" was placed first for a reason.  I will return to this idea later in his speech, but it is helpful to note at this point that "a more hopeful Middle East" and "a more secure America" don't say anything.

What does either of those statements mean when you think about war ending at any point in the future?  I state this with the assumption that we all recognize that war is a last resort intended to last only as long as absolutely necessary. 

War, in and of itself, is an evil that sometimes becomes necessary; however, war is never easy!

Bush builds on his reasons for being in Iraq and I think he is finally being honest if not completely forth right.  "The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress."  This suggests that Iraq is just the beginning and the good news is that after 5 years of being in Iraq we finally figured out how to do this thing.  "[I]n areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life." 

If you want to develop a strategy for recreating the world in a particular image, this seems like a pretty good plan.  Too bad we didn't develop it five years ago.  (It is still debatable as to whether this is a sound strategy as individual human beings coexisting on the same planet.)

In a further effort to establish our mysterious, ubiquitous enemy; Bush assigns those enemy qualities such as "suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda."  He follows that up by stating, "[local people] were sick of it."  This would be a somewhat weak defense for invading Iraq, but it seems that point is lost on President Bush.  I don't remember hearing about how "sick" people in Iraq were "of it" before we invaded, but we're five years past the debate on that topic. 

I might point out that people "are sick of it" in the United States and "it" can be any number of things not related to Iraq.

President Bush also spoke of Provincial Reconstruction Teams involvement in Iraq.  This is a term that appears fresh from the January surge of troops into Iraq and this is one thing I like about this Invasion of Iraq.  The Provincial Reconstruction Teams are comprised of civilians and military personnel to include: "diplomats...military officers, development policy experts (from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Justice), and other specialists (in fields such as rule of law, engineering, and oil industry operations) who work closely with Iraqi provincial leaders and the Iraqi communities." 
                                                                                                                      http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/78599.htm

If these PRT's- as they will undoubtedly be referred to in the future- achieve their results, they further provide an alternative to war in the future.

Imagine we had negotiated with a country first (rather than invaded) to help them improve their living conditions and accessibility to the rest of the world.  Imagine that after that negotiating term we found a country willing to allow our PRT's entrance to work on improvement in their country.  Imagine that we began that war with isolated fighting from the elements already in said country and not the country itself.  Imagine that we were successful through peaceful negotiation in lifting a "Third World" country into the "First World."  Imagine the response we would receive from other "Third World" countries.  Imagine, but I'm beginning to sound like John Lennon so let's return to Bush's speech before we all get delusional about where we are today.

Not only does Bush, in this speech, attempt to cast Al Qaeda as the ubiquitous enemy, but he also tries to cast "extremists" into the role of our enemy.  "The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out."  I wonder what changes might take place in the United States of America if the "extremists are driven out." 

The extremists in America include:
Evangelicals http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v25/ai_13618596,
Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/,
 Ku Klux Klan http://www.counterpunch.org/wazwaz1010.html
and in some cases Hippies. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1765993.stm.

Revealing his longer range goals, President Bush reported in his speech "the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country."  This is a case he builds throughout his speech.  Remember that this train of thought began with "a more hopeful Middle East."  Also remember, Iraq is not "the Middle East" it is merely a part of the Middle East.  If Bush's agenda is continued into the future do not doubt for a moment that if Iraq is successful these operations will not stop there.  The president hinted at what this will look like in the future when he stated, "our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to over watching those forces." 

This is a plan for the Forever Empire in the Middle East starting with Iraq.

As seems to be his style, near the end of his speech President Bush lays out in pretty plan language his overall intent.

"A free Iraq will deny Al Qaeda a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror — and that will make us safer here at home."

He starts with the ubiquitous enemy and skips the fact that we did not invade Iraq to get rid of Al Qaeda.  Keep in mind, Al Qaeda did not establish themselves firmly in Iraq until we deposed Saddam Hussein from power.  Bush sets the criteria for freedom in Iraq by imagining a marginalized set of extremists in Iraq.  This is particularly interesting when you consider that Bush himself is an extremist in his own country due to his Evangelical ties in a country primarily populated by moderate Christians.  Bush then alludes to his larger plan of expanding these operations outside of Iraq's borders.  Do not believe for a moment that this is not a plan to do the same things we're doing in Iraq elsewhere in the Middle East.  Bush wants a "more hopeful Middle East."  Either that or as an Evangelical he wants Armageddon.  http://www.rense.com/general31/arma.htm

Bush's nutty religious views surface in regard to his views on the Middle East even clearer near the end of his speech.  "We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land..." 

What Holy Land is he referring to and why is it capitalized? 

Apparently the Holy Land that we are currently spilling blood for in Iraq today.  Bush puts the exclamation point on this as he wraps up by citing the parent's of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan.  Bush quotes Stout's parents as saying, "We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win..."  I might ask which side we're on, but I think I already know their answer. 

Specialist Stout was activated from the National Guard in July of apparently 2006.  He reached Iraq in the following October as part of the military police (i.e. MP) and then lost his life to an explosive device in January of 2007.  Stout was spoken of highly and served his nation well by being a good soldier.  http://www.mco.com/valor/2508800.html

In his speech, President Bush uses Spec. Brandon Stout to further his agenda.  As I've demonstrated that agenda is one of establishing the "always" enemy in the form of Al Qaeda and extremists in the Middle East.  Bush's agenda also seeks to rebuild the Middle East in his own vision.  Bush's vision for the Middle East- it would seem due to his Evangelical ties- may include implications of a Messiah returning.  It seems pretty clear from his speech, that Bush's vision for the future of the Middle East includes a healthy contingent of U.S. forces overseeing stability for unspecified periods of time.  Bush's speech also suggests that once Iraq is secured, Iran will be next. 
This is a perpetual war folks and if we don't stop it soon Iraq will succeed.  After the success of Iraq, prepare yourself for the invasion of Iran because this is a conscious U.S. foreign policy strategy that was explained to me by an Arizona State University professor over three years ago.  

The idea is that you label all of the countries surrounding Iraq that are hostile to the U.S.  Iraq is in the middle of the U.S.-hostile Middle East countries.  From there, it is simply divide and conquer.

Why are we doing this?

"AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil."
                                                                  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece



Getting to Know Your Government (U.S. Senate Study)Missouri Senator Kit Bond on the war in Iraq-

9/11/2007-  "Because of our new strategy, the momentum has clearly shifted to our favor in Iraq," Bond said.   http://www.marshallnews.com/story/1253121.html

Kit Bond on Global Warming Legislation

9/9/2007-  "Your proposal would impose hardship on U.S. citizens and threatens robust growth in the U.S. economy," Bond said repeatedly in a letter last week to the two senators.
                        http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct—globalwarming-bon0909sep09,0,6272018.story

Kit Bond on increasing funds for bridge repair around the country.

9/11/2007-  "I do have the feeling we should not overreact" to the bridge collapse, he said.
http://thegate.nationaljournal.com/2007/09/senate_votes_to_boost_bridge_r.php

Sam Hananel reports that Missouri's other Senator Claire McCaskill has an issue with Kit Bond.

9/11/2007-  The dispute over earmarks is a major philosophical difference between McCaskill and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Bond has brought millions of dollars worth of projects to the state through earmarks and argues that no other system is as effective in bringing federal money to Missouri. 
       http://www.examiner.com/a-929259~McCaskill_tries_to_clear_up_confusion_on_earmarks.html


Question of the Week

Where were you on September 11th of 2007?  Did you think about the World Trade Center falling?  Did you feel it like it was yesterday or is 9/11/2001 further along its way to becoming a question on Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit?

Tip of the week

Being conservative is admitting, "This is the way we've always done it!"

Birthday Shout Outs (9/16 to 9/22)

9/16
(1925) B.B. King- The brother is bad.


(1956) David Copperfield- It's got to be a tough road rising above being a hack to a worldwide recognized master magician.  A name.

9/17
(1883) William Carlos Williams- How can so much meaning be packed into so few words?

The Red Wheelbarrow

so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.

(1931) Anne Bancroft- Here's to you Mrs. Robinson.

(1935) Ken Kesey- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is one of the best pieces of writing ever written.
(1948) John Ritter- Jack Tripper.  Come on.  Give it up for Jack Tripper.
(1951) Elvira- For not being very pretty, she sure was hot.
(1961) Jim Cornette- One of the most entertaining men in professional wrestling.

9/18
(1933) Robert Blake- He was a Little Rascal and that is cooler than the Beatles.

9/19
(1911) William Golding- Lord of the Flies was an incredibly enjoyable book.
(1928) Adam West- He was the cheesiest of the Batmans, but he had a style.
(1943) Mama Cass Elliott- The Mamas and the Papas had a great sound.


(1974) Jimmy Fallon- He was in the Saturday Night Live line up and that's almost as cool as the Beatles.


9/20
(1878)Upton Sinclair- He shook up the world with the Jungle.  Wow that book is depressing.
(1934) Sophia Loren- Total hotty.
            
(1958) Arn Anderson- An original member of the Four Horsemen and that is as cool as the Beatles.


(1964) Crispin Glover- George McFly was the best.  "Get your damn hands off her Biff."

(1968) Ben Sheperd- Soundgarden had a nice sound.

9/21
(1866) H.G. Wells- The Time Machine was a very deep book when read with thoughts of human evolution in mind.
(1947) Don Felder- The Eagles are one of the best bands ever.

(1947) Stephen King- I've read a lot of his books as have many other people.
(1950) Bill Murray- He was at his best in Caddy Shack and yet another member of the Saturday Night Live line up.

(1958) Rick Mahorn- He was a Bad Boy.
(1971) Alfonso Ribeiro- Carlton is the greatest.


(1972) David Silveria- I didn't really care for Korn on their first tour, but I have to admit they've come a long way musically.

A Forward-looking Civilization

The X Prize Foundation has offered many millions of dollars to the first individuals that can create a robot capable of landing on the moon and transmitting back pictures to Earth.  Called Moon 2.0, this contest symbolizes a system of donation and giving better than any tithe.  As the U.S. economy begins to spin out of control, many economists have suggested the upper tier of wealth holders in the United States need to begin injecting their money back into the communal pot or watch recession hit everyone.

The X Prize Foundation not only wants to inject money into the private sector, but also expand the boundaries of science at the same time.  This is not their first contest.  They've paid private individuals for creating a rocket capable of sub orbit, they're offering millions for a vehicle that can get 100 mile to the gallon as well as offering millions of dollars for rapid human genome decoding in a short period of time.

Every now and again you have to run across a story like this that makes you feel like we have a chance as a species.  It's just too bad they don't come around more often. 
                    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-19566800.htm

Belly Laugh

Up this week is Lenny Bruce.  He seemed incredibly intelligent and witty although he's a bit hard to understand today because of all of his contemporary references.  It's amazing he was taken to court for profanity. 
He's nothing but tame by today's standards.