A year later
A year ago, President Bush announced the surge. Fred Barnes described how he got to that decision. Here is what the NYT said on January 11, 2007, after the President announced the new strategy:
President Bush is not only inviting an epic clash with the Democrats who run Capitol Hill. He is ignoring the results of the November elections, rejecting the central thrust of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and flouting the advice of some of his own generals…In so doing, Mr. Bush is taking a calculated gamble that no matter how much hue and cry his new strategy may provoke, in the end the American people will give him more time to turn around the war in Iraq and Congress will not have the political nerve to thwart him by cutting off money for the war.
The plan, outlined by the president in stark, simple tones in a 20-minute speech from the White House library, is vintage George Bush — in the eyes of admirers, resolute and principled; in the eyes of critics, bull-headed, even delusional, about the prospects for success in Iraq…no American president has been able to prosecute a war indefinitely without the support of the American public. With polls showing fewer than 20 percent of Americans supporting increasing troop levels in Iraq, Mr. Bush and those Republicans who support him know that the new policy will be a tough sell.
Last night, amid the usual folderol, President Bush gave his final SOTU. He didn’t discuss the war in any detail until halfway through the 5500 word address. Some have criticized that. But we had a different take. In a year’s time, the President has changed from being beleaguered by Iraq to something quite different. The President’s relaxed and jovial demeanor was telling: this guy believes we won the war. This address seemed to be a “Mission Accomplished” speech without the swagger.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Jack, currently the post links to the 2003 SOTU. This year’s speech is here.
In a year’s time, the President has changed from being beleaguered by Iraq to something quite different. The President’s relaxed and jovial demeanor was telling: this guy believes we won the war.
This is the guy who took the carrier-landing victory lap in front of the whole world–for winning the first round of the first battle in the war. Do the leaderships of Iran and North Korea–and Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, et al–believe we won the war? If so, when will compelling evidence emerge?
**********
It’s not clear to me whether our interventions in Vietnam and Iraq were strategically correct. Even so, losing as we did in Vietnam compounded the (possible) top-level misjudgment. A victory, even a pyrrhic one, is preferable to a ruinous defeat.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
On second thought after my previous comment:
This is the guy who took the carrier-landing victory lap in front of the whole world–for winning the first round of the first battle in the war.
Iraq is the second battle of the war. Afghanistan is the first.
A victory, even a pyrrhic one, is preferable to a ruinous defeat.
Usually but not always: if it makes you overconfident…