President Bush’s Iraq Speech

Yesterday, I reviewed Stratfor’s analysis of the Iraq war. For the lack of a better word, Stratfor presented the war in terms of real politik. You can read my previous post here and take in the interpretation they present.

After you do, compare what Stratfor writes to what President Bush had  say in his speech at the Pentagon today.

The justification for the war has changed:

Because we acted, Saddam Hussein no longer fills fields with the remains of innocent men, women and children. Because we acted, Saddam’s torture chambers and rape rooms and children’s prisons have been closed for good. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer invading its neighbors or attacking them with chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer paying the families of suicide bombers in the Holy Land. Because we acted, Saddam’s regime is no longer shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones and defying the will of the United Nations. Because we acted, the world is better and United States of America is safer.

Bush basically admits that the insurgency surprised the war planners:

When the Iraqi regime was removed, it did not lay down its arms and surrender. Instead, former regime elements took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq. And then they were joined by foreign terrorists who were seeking to stop the advance of liberty in the Middle East and seeking to establish safe havens from which to plot new attacks across the world.

The battle in Iraq has been longer and harder and more costly than we anticipated — but it is a fight we must win.

Part of the real reason for the war. The war had to be taken to the middle east or we could do absolutely nothing:

Over the past five years, we have seen moments of triumph and moments of tragedy. We have watched in admiration as 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and went to the polls, and chose their leaders in free elections. We have watched in horror as al Qaeda beheaded innocent captives, and sent suicide bombers to blow up mosques and markets. These actions show the brutal nature of the enemy in Iraq. And they serve as a grim reminder: The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad want to murder the innocent in the streets of America. Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely that we’ll face the enemy here at home.

The left calls Bush arrogant, but read what he says. His administration misjudged the situation. He admits he was wrong. But the stakes were too high to run. Running would have brought al-Qaeda to our shores–and this is what the left fails to understand, because it would have shown America as weak. No Arab country would bother to help us fight al-Qaeda if they thought us weak.

The whole point of going into Iraq was to show the extent of American power. Not only has George Bush saved the image of American power, he has show the Arab and Persian world, that even in adversity, America’s military can adapt and win.

And in this case,  the U.S. combined a counter-insurgency program with a complicated game of political co-opting in Iraq.

A little over a year ago, the fight in Iraq was faltering. Extremist elements were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. They had established safe havens in many parts of the country. They were creating divisions among the Iraqis along sectarian lines. And their strategy of using violence in Iraq to cause divisions in America was working — as pressures built here in Washington for withdrawal before the job was done.

My administration understood that America could not retreat in the face of terror. And we knew that if we did not act, the violence that had been consuming Iraq would worsen, and spread, and could eventually reach genocidal levels. Baghdad could have disintegrated into a contagion of killing, and Iraq could have descended into full-blown sectarian warfare.

So we reviewed the strategy — and changed course in Iraq. We sent reinforcements into the country in a dramatic policy shift that is now known as “the surge.” General David Petraeus took command with a new mission: Work with Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pressure [sic] the enemy into strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country. And that is precisely what we have done.

In Anbar, Sunni tribal leaders had grown tired of al Qaeda’s brutality and started a popular uprising, called the “Anbar Awakening.” To take advantage of this opportunity, we sent 4,000 additional Marines to help these brave Iraqis drive al Qaeda from the province. As this effort succeeded, it inspired other Iraqis to take up the fight. Soon similar uprisings began to spread across the country. Today there are more than 90,000 concerned local citizens who are protecting their communities from the terrorists and insurgents and the extremists. The government in Baghdad has stepped forward with a surge of its own — they’ve added more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year. These Iraqi troops have fought bravely, and thousands have given their lives in this struggle.

And here in a nutshell is the raison d’état for invading Iraq. America was mad after 9/11. America was willing to use it power and the message was if Iraq was tangential to the fight against terror, then so is your country. The weapons of mass destruction was a justification given to the American people, because how do you sell the real reason for this war?  War was seen as necessary to achieve victory against al-Qaeda, but explaining the machinations to the public would have been impossible.

If we were to allow our enemies to prevail in Iraq, the violence that is now declining would accelerate — and Iraq would descend into chaos. Al Qaeda would regain its lost sanctuaries and establish new ones — fomenting violence and terror that could spread beyond Iraq’s borders, with serious consequences for the world’s economy.

Out of such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened — with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America. An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq’s oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations. Iran would be emboldened as well — with a renewed determination to develop nuclear weapons and impose its brand of hegemony across the Middle East. Our enemies would see an America — an American failure in Iraq as evidence of weakness and a lack of resolve.

And the last sentence says it all. The left hasn’t the stomach for battle. They would have chose the “do nothing” approach after 9/11. That would have been viewed as weakness and more than likely we would have been attacked again.

Clinton’s or Obama’s plan to pull our troops out of Iraq invites a reinvigorated al-Qaeda to attack our shores.

If only President Bush would have given this speech earlier and more often.

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Nuke Gingrich, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Miss Beth’s Victory Dance, Dumb Ox Daily News, , and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Related posts:

Update on Offensive in Iraq

Stratfor’s Analysis of the Iraq War

Photo of the Month: B-1 Destroys Al-Qaeda Hide Out

President’s Power Trumps International Law

Terrorizing Iraq’s Women and Children: Part 3

Tags: anniversary, Bush, Iraq, speech, war