SURGE SPEECH 2

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Surge Speech 1 is here.)

You can find the text of Bush's speech here. Here's a relevant passage:

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.

But, again, Iraq was not a haven for terrorists before the war. The fact that it is now, at least to some degree, is testament to what a failure the war has been.

What's more, Bush defends the surge by once again, as he always does, connecting the war in Iraq to the war on terror, that is, to 9/11, and fearmongering. Indeed, the passage quoted above is followed immediately by a reference to 9/11: "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." But "the other side of the world" wasn't Iraq. It was Afghanistan. And the terrorists, or most of them, were Saudi, not Iraqi.

But this is Bush's deception. And the reasoning is, as usual, specious: We must win in Iraq because the terrorists are there because of the war in Iraq. But they wouldn't be there if the war was never waged. Or they wouldn't be there to the extent they are now if the war had been waged properly. Another way to put it is like this: We fucked up, but, well, that's behind us now. Let's try to make up for fucking up. But the surge won't work. It's far too little and far too late.

An increase of somewhat more than 20,000 troops in Baghdad and the Anbar province won't put an end to the civil war that now rages in Iraq. It will only prolong the suffering and put off the inevitable.

**********

There's more on Bush's speech at The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, and the BBC. And elsewhere, of course.

**********

Bush's "New Iraq Strategy," or "The New Way Forward in Iraq" is outlined at the White House website. There are "six fundamental elements". Where was this in 2003? (Read Woodward.)

Once again, though, there are those dubious connections between the war in Iraq to the war on terror: "Iraq Could Not Be Graver -- The War On Terror Cannot Be Won If We Fail In Iraq. Our enemies throughout the Middle East are trying to defeat us in Iraq. If we step back now, the problems in Iraq will become more lethal, and make our troops fight an uglier battle than we are seeing today."

But fighting a lost war in Iraq only distracts from the real war on terror being fought elsewhere. Bush's war has strengthened and emboldened the terrorists, and it will only continue to do so.

And it is both disingenuous and despicable to argue that an escalation of the war will make it easier on the troops. How does Bush know that? And how does that justify the spilling of yet more blood?

**********

As ABC News is reporting, "the troop surge in Iraq is already under way". It's a done deal. Which only goes to show that Bush has never had any real interest in working with Congress or otherwise seeking compromise and building consensus.

Newsweek is reporting that "the president’s approach will be... cautious". This has to do with the "benchmarks" that must be met by Iraqis that Bush mentioned in his speech. But this is just Bush hedging his bets and looking for a way out if and when his "new" strategy goes the way of all the old ones. Which is to say, when it fails to meet its objectives.

**********

We'll have more on THE SURGE going forward.