A defiant and fairly detailed pitch. But will it work?
Dec 1st 2005
THE constitution may bar George Bush from running for a third term. But the president is back in full campaign mode at the moment—determined to justify a war that is losing public support, even among Republicans. Indeed, watching his trip to the naval academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to give the first in a series of speeches on Iraq, you might be forgiven for thinking that he had also taken a time-machine back to the glory days of the 2004 campaign. Mr Bush gave a surprisingly strong performance (a far cry from his bumbling in Asia), the naval officers all clapped at all the right moments and, on cue, John Kerry obliged with a long-winded reply.
Mr Bush's speech contained a lot of predictable stuff. He jabbed at those Democrats who want to lay down a timetable for withdrawing (and praised Joe Lieberman for wanting to stay the course). He welcomed the current debate in Washington, DC, while simultaneously hinting that it was demotivating the troops. And he sang his familiar hymn of praise to democratising the Middle East.
But he also did rather more than this. He seems to have finally realised that worries about Iraq can no longer be soothed by familiar rhetorical bromides. People want to know answers to concrete questions, such as when the troops will come home. Mr Bush did not exactly answer these questions. But he went further towards doing so than he has in the past.
Mr Bush's first job was to demonstrate that America has a “plan for victory”. He did this not just by standing in front of lots of plaques inscribed ingeniously with “plan for victory”, but also by publishing a 35-page “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”. Billed as the declassified version of the administration's master plan, it argues for advancing on three fronts: political (by building democratic institutions and bringing more Iraqis into the process); economic (rebuilding the country's infrastructure); and security (building Iraq's defences and defeating insurgents).
Mr Bush's second job was to reassure people that American troops will one day come home. He refused to give any timetable for withdrawal: that would simply embolden the enemy. He also refused to talk numbers: troop levels will be determined by conditions on the ground. But he argued vigorously—and with an unusual amount of detail—that America is succeeding in training Iraqi troops, pointing to successes in towns like Tel Afar.
How persuasive is Mr Bush's case? He not only wants to reassure voters that he knows what he's doing. He is also in the business of pressuring Congress. The Pentagon has already requested $3.9 billion for next year to help prepare Iraqi troops, on top of the $10.6 billion that has already gone to rebuild Iraq's security forces.
The speech was followed by predictable sword-play between the parties. The Democrats accused Mr Bush of failing to provide enough detail. The Republicans accused the Democrats of wanting to cut and run. But three things can be stated with reasonable assurance about the “Iraq factor” in American politics.
First, Mr Bush waited far too long to publish this plan. This tardiness has convinced millions of people that he does not know what he is doing; it also means that many people may now think he only produced the plan this week to shore up waning support. Second, the real test of Mr Bush's rhetoric will be on the ground in Iraq (see article). It is worth keeping a close eye on Tel Afar. If Iraqi forces can keep order in Mr Bush's showcase city, then his talk of an orderly transfer may not sound quite so starry-eyed.
Third, Mr Bush's problems in Iraq don't necessarily translate into Democratic gains. It is true that public opinion has soured on the war (in a recent Harris poll only 32% of Americans said that they are confident that Iraq will be successful in turning into a stable democracy). But the polls hardly suggest that the Democrats are gaining much traction on the subject. A poll taken by RT Strategies shows 51% of Americans think the opposition is criticising the war to gain partisan advantage and 44% believe that morale is hurt “a lot” by politicians who criticise the war. Baghdad is not the only place with a stalemate
Dec 1st 2005
THE constitution may bar George Bush from running for a third term. But the president is back in full campaign mode at the moment—determined to justify a war that is losing public support, even among Republicans. Indeed, watching his trip to the naval academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to give the first in a series of speeches on Iraq, you might be forgiven for thinking that he had also taken a time-machine back to the glory days of the 2004 campaign. Mr Bush gave a surprisingly strong performance (a far cry from his bumbling in Asia), the naval officers all clapped at all the right moments and, on cue, John Kerry obliged with a long-winded reply.
Mr Bush's speech contained a lot of predictable stuff. He jabbed at those Democrats who want to lay down a timetable for withdrawing (and praised Joe Lieberman for wanting to stay the course). He welcomed the current debate in Washington, DC, while simultaneously hinting that it was demotivating the troops. And he sang his familiar hymn of praise to democratising the Middle East.
But he also did rather more than this. He seems to have finally realised that worries about Iraq can no longer be soothed by familiar rhetorical bromides. People want to know answers to concrete questions, such as when the troops will come home. Mr Bush did not exactly answer these questions. But he went further towards doing so than he has in the past.
Mr Bush's first job was to demonstrate that America has a “plan for victory”. He did this not just by standing in front of lots of plaques inscribed ingeniously with “plan for victory”, but also by publishing a 35-page “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”. Billed as the declassified version of the administration's master plan, it argues for advancing on three fronts: political (by building democratic institutions and bringing more Iraqis into the process); economic (rebuilding the country's infrastructure); and security (building Iraq's defences and defeating insurgents).
Mr Bush's second job was to reassure people that American troops will one day come home. He refused to give any timetable for withdrawal: that would simply embolden the enemy. He also refused to talk numbers: troop levels will be determined by conditions on the ground. But he argued vigorously—and with an unusual amount of detail—that America is succeeding in training Iraqi troops, pointing to successes in towns like Tel Afar.
How persuasive is Mr Bush's case? He not only wants to reassure voters that he knows what he's doing. He is also in the business of pressuring Congress. The Pentagon has already requested $3.9 billion for next year to help prepare Iraqi troops, on top of the $10.6 billion that has already gone to rebuild Iraq's security forces.
The speech was followed by predictable sword-play between the parties. The Democrats accused Mr Bush of failing to provide enough detail. The Republicans accused the Democrats of wanting to cut and run. But three things can be stated with reasonable assurance about the “Iraq factor” in American politics.
First, Mr Bush waited far too long to publish this plan. This tardiness has convinced millions of people that he does not know what he is doing; it also means that many people may now think he only produced the plan this week to shore up waning support. Second, the real test of Mr Bush's rhetoric will be on the ground in Iraq (see article). It is worth keeping a close eye on Tel Afar. If Iraqi forces can keep order in Mr Bush's showcase city, then his talk of an orderly transfer may not sound quite so starry-eyed.
Third, Mr Bush's problems in Iraq don't necessarily translate into Democratic gains. It is true that public opinion has soured on the war (in a recent Harris poll only 32% of Americans said that they are confident that Iraq will be successful in turning into a stable democracy). But the polls hardly suggest that the Democrats are gaining much traction on the subject. A poll taken by RT Strategies shows 51% of Americans think the opposition is criticising the war to gain partisan advantage and 44% believe that morale is hurt “a lot” by politicians who criticise the war. Baghdad is not the only place with a stalemate
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق