Buried in the Echo
I just read the transcript of Bush’s speech over at Balloon Juice. In general, it is as devoid of genuine news as cynics predicted – if you’ve ever read a comment thread at Winds of Change, you’ve read the speech. (We kid because we, um, are kidders.) Hell, much of it sounds like it was lifted verbatim from last week’s speech.
That said, there were two nuggets tucked into the thing. At the end, for the first time I believe, Bush mentions that if anyone out there wants to enlist in the military, that would be really cool. And up in the middle, this:
And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever – when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.
That, if sincere, would make the speech a bombshell, pretty conclusively foreswearing any ambition at enduring bases. I don’t believe it is sincere, but of course I could be wrong. (When John Kerry argued in last year’s debates that the US needed to state that it had no intentions of keeping troops and facilities permanently in Iraq Bush studiously ignored the suggestion.)
If it is sincere, it might connect with the recent reports of meetings between US negotiators and native-Iraqi elements of the insurgency – a declaration of intent to completely vacate Iraq would meet a key insurgent demand and give us that much more chance of splitting the nationalist wing of the insurgency from the jihadist (international) elements.
That, Loyal Readers, really would be a hopeful sign. But perhaps I too am vulnerable to attacks of RSN Syndrome.
The most offensively bad part of the speech was the repeat of the fighting them in Iraq before they get here part, which doesn’t get any less stupid the more it gets repeated. Nothing on how the country will deal with the graduates of Jihad University, because the official pretense is that it doesn’t exist. Is it too much to hope that they’re at least thinking about the problem in secret? Probably.
Comment by Jon Hendry —
June 28, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
Re: jihad university…
.
Wasn’t it awesome, back in the 80s, when there was no Islamic terrorism because they were all stuck to the “flypaper” in Afghanistan, fighting the Soviets?
.
All we had to deal with was stuff like the Lockerbie bombing, but that was Mormons, wasn’t it? Or was it the Amish?
Comment by Hesiod —
June 28, 2005 @ 9:41 pm
Just call me Mr. Prophet.
Comment by Justin —
June 28, 2005 @ 9:49 pm
“And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever – when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.”
That, if sincere, would make the speech a bombshell, pretty conclusively foreswearing any ambition at enduring bases.
Err, Jim, we’re over /here/. If the president said “we conclusively foreswear any ambition at establishing enduring bases in Iraq,” you could sleep pretty soundly on a bet that our Iraqi buddies would spontaneously invite us to hang out for a while at “their” bases.
Trackback by Mark in Mexico —
June 29, 2005 @ 4:16 am
When the going gets tough…
What did you expect to hear? The president’s speech tonight has been described as “treading water”. Of course he is treading water. What else can he do? He made it plain to us, over and over again, that this would be a long, tough fight.
Comment by MMGood —
June 29, 2005 @ 5:10 am
Mark in Mexico,
Does “Mission Accomplished” ring any bells?
Comment by Daryl McCullough —
June 29, 2005 @ 8:43 am
MMGood wrote: Does “Mission Accomplished” ring any bells?
That was referring to the mission of getting Bush re-elected.
Oh, bother! Why is it that some comments forms require 〈 i 〉 〈 /i 〉for italics, and others require 〈 e 〉 〈 /e 〉?
Comment by Barry —
June 29, 2005 @ 8:51 am
Mark in Mexico,
I guess that ‘cakewalk’, ‘6 months, tops’, ‘rice and flowers’, and ‘down to 30K troops by September [2003]‘ are down the Memory Hole?
Comment by Diana —
June 29, 2005 @ 9:38 am
Must we overinterpret? It’s just a politician caught in the headlights, in full gallop away from the truth and consequences. He’ll say anything to save his own face.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 29, 2005 @ 9:50 am
Diana, you’re probably right. OTOH, Billmon’s item on rhetorical shifts may dovetail with the idea that this speech was preparing the ground for a direct deal with at least some of the insurgents, and that deal would have to include at least the appearance of being willing to vacate the country.
Comment by Johnathan —
June 29, 2005 @ 11:04 am
Jim, the “Jihad University” seemed to be turning out quite a lot of graduates long before the Coalition decided to call time on Saddam’s grim rule. The Jihad University trope is just as unproven as the David Warren “flypaper” concept. In fact the two may sort of cancel each other out.
Comment by Jim Henley —
June 29, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
Read the reporting on the most recent CIA analysis. The Iraq campus of Jihad University is qualitatively different from the other branches. They’re getting more live-fire training in urban warfare than students got in Afghanistan and Chechnya and Kosovo. Also, these students are getting experience taking on American troops and civilians directly. Warren is one of the biggest fools alive, and his “concept” was an attempt to backfill a gaping hole where a cakewalk had been. It was also morally monstrous.
Comment by chris from boca —
June 29, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
how stupid can everyone be?
to STILL be asking whether we might give up aspirations of a permanent military presence in iraq based on the words of this liar president. how naive! idiots need to be cheated over and over and over before learning that W will say anything to create the conditions conducive to the grand crime he has engaged in in iraq for years now. it’s occurring right under everyone’s noses because of so much fear and insecurity. he could destroy the rest of the world and all anyone would ever care about is their own “SECURITY”.
KARMA IS A BITCH PEOPLE. try a little insecurity with a dose of genuine righteousness. self righteous violence will always lead you back to where you started.
Pingback by Peace Movement § Unqualified Offerings —
June 29, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
[...] rtures. Nobody’s dancing yet, but people are making eyes across the room. I already highlighted the brief reference the President made foreswearing any desire to take up [...]
Trackback by newsrack —
June 30, 2005 @ 9:01 am
Reading the Fort Bragg tea leaves
Two reactions to the Bush Fort Bragg speech glean a little more value from the speech than I was able to.
Comment by Johnathan Pearce —
June 30, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
Jim, yes, I saw reports of what the CIA said. The argument does cut the other way, though: the Coalition are getting experience in dealing with the products of the “Jihadi Universty” and seem to be killing rather a lot of them. The supply of these “insurgents” is not endless. Sooner or later the supply will dry up. The tricky bit, of course, is figuring out whether the Coalition and the nascent Iraqi forces can stay the course.