Archive for November 30th, 2005

Bush’s Plan and Speech

I have only read the Executive Summary for the “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” and scanned a couple of news articles. Attending a meeting this morning put me behind, therefore I will hit the highlights as I understand them at this point. This will cover the document and the president’s speech.

The Jist

  • The speech was broadcast in the US and Mesopotamia. Media sources indicate the broadcast’s primary target was Mesopotamia rather than the US.
  • Bush did not broke new ground for US strategy within the document or the speech.
  • “Stay the course” ad nauseum — “America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am commander in chief. America will not abandon Iraq.”
  • No time frames associated with anything (from speech and report).

The Jokes

  • Iraqi forces were fighting better and gaining more control of their embattled country.
  • Bush said mistakes had been made in the training of Iraqi forces that have now been righted. (that brings total mistakes to two in 5+ years)
  • How the United States defines victory in Iraq.
    • More of “as they stand up, we sit down” — expects the number of U.S. forces in Iraq (approx 160,000) will decrease over the next year as the “political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience,”
  • Increasing numbers of Iraqi troops have been equipped and trained, a democratic government is taking shape and Iraq’s economy is being rebuilt.

The Jive

  • Victory
    • Will take time and many challenges remain
    • In three stages — short term, medium term and longer term.
      • Short-term = “Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.”
    • Iraqi forces to take the lead without “major foreign assistance,”
  • Why it is vital to U.S. interests (ed. note: answer must be in the detail report)
  • Identified the “enemy” in Iraq as “diffuse and sophisticated,” a combination of Iraqis who reject democratic reforms, Saddam Hussein loyalists and al-Qaeda inspired terrorists. (How informative — glad we got that cleared up)

Capitalizing on sympathy at others’ expense

Reading from a letter written by a U.S. soldier on his lap-top computer before his death, an emotional Bush said America owes those who have died in Iraq to “take up their mantle, carry on the fight and complete their mission.”

Cutting to the chase

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) issued a statement saying the president had “recycled his tired rhetoric of ’stay the course’ and once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home.”

(ed. note: no specific references cited; general references - the report, The Washington Post, The New York Times)

National Strategy for Iraq

The president’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq was released this morning and is available here (PDF). I have a meeting this morning and have not read the document yet. As soon as I have read it, I will update you.

In the interim, consider this an open thread if anyone wants to provide input or discussion.

The George Bush, Brownie Analogy

Michelle Cottle at TNR (sub. req.) on the analogy of George Bush and  Michael Brown’s ascension to Disaster Preparedness Consultant.

Its amusement value aside, however, I relish watching Brownie scamper off down this particular career path in the hopes that he (once again) fails so spectacularly that he becomes a cautionary case study in some future course at Harvard Business School. It’s not that I bear the guy any ill will—or rather, not just that. More broadly, I see his shameless reinvention attempt as a prime opportunity for corporate America to demonstrate that it operates in, if not always a more meritocratic fashion, at least a more rational, bottom-line-focused fashion than the Bush White House.

As often noted, this administration has made it a habit, if not an official policy, to praise, promote, or otherwise reward those who carry its water and smooch its backside, regardless of how poorly qualified or breathtakingly inept the individuals in question may have proved themselves. Bungle a war? Have a medal. Idolize W.? Have a Supreme Court nomination—at least until the wingers revolt. (For more examples of this loyalty-uber-alles approach to governing, see TNR’s recent cover on the Bush Hackocracy.)

W. has always fancied himself a CEO-type president. But our commander-in-chief clearly has very particular ideas about what it means to be a CEO—ideas shaped by his long pre-gubernatorial career as an utter mediocrity repeatedly allowed to fail upward thanks to Poppy’s pals. (One word: Arbusto.) Of course Bush is now a die-hard cronyist; what else would you expect from the most successful product of cronyism this nation has seen in modern times?

Ignore for the moment the immediate danger of having a bunch of questionably competent political hacks running the country. It may be years before we fully understand the harmful lessons that Bush’s antimeritocratic philosophy has taught future generations.

—–