President's Speech Offers Nothing New

MORE
Joe Conason

• Show Us Your 1040, Mrs. McCain!
• Hillary Plays the Crazy Card
• Blame Wright's Enablers
• The Ritual Flaying of Carter

All on one page >>

Confronting an international crisis of confidence over American policy in Iraq, White House strategists responded with a tough-sounding but mediocre speech that reiterated favorite myths and recited inspirational banalities. Lacking energy and conviction as he spoke, President Bush seemed to realize his words would provide scant reassurance to worried citizens, who suspect that he and his aides have no idea how to extricate our troops from his war.

Although Mr. Bush has previously acknowledged that there is as yet no convincing evidence of a link between the former Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda, he repeated that same old canard on Monday evening. He described Iraq as the "central front in the war on terror," and went on to say "terrorist" or "terrorism" approximately every 90 seconds. Cynical observers might think this was an attempt to halt declining public support for his Iraq policy by reminding voters that they support his efforts against the perpetrators of 9/11.

The President also deflected criticism of his war in Iraq with another claim that could only be believed by the most naïve listeners. He seemed to suggest that the war in Afghanistan has transformed that unfortunate neglected country into a thriving democracy. This is a pretty thought that bears little resemblance to the reality there, where the "president" is derided as the "mayor of Kabul," warlords still rule the countryside, women are oppressed, there is no functioning indigenous security force, and narcotics production remains the fastest-growing industry.

Unfounded optimism and deceptive simplification are the hallmarks of the typical George W. Bush speech, and this example was no exception. With his repeated denunciations of the "foreign fighters" and Saddam loyalists who are supposedly responsible for resistance to the U.S. occupation, the President badly misled his listeners about Iraq's real problem and ours. If the trouble in Iraq were merely the remnants of the Republican Guard and a few fanatics infiltrating from neighboring states, Mr. Bush's plans might actually work.

But the unhappy truth is that after 15 months of badly planned and poorly executed occupation, the Bush administration has lost the support of many Iraqis who have no use for Baathism, Wahhabism or any other ideology. Disillusioned Iraqis place little faith in Mr. Bush's promises of freedom and democracy, because they live every day with the grim reality of the occupation. In frustration, many of them now profess support of Muqtada al-Sadr-the fundamentalist Shiite firebrand who is far more popular than that once-great American hope, Ahmad Chalabi. The President did not dare admit that Iraq is moving toward civil war for reasons that have nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and everything to do with ancient enmities unleashed by the U.S. invasion. Perhaps his advisors don't tell him what is really happening there.

The five steps which the President outlined are sensible enough, but his own policies dim the prospect of achieving them.

How can the President say that the Coalition Provisional Authority will transfer "complete sovereignty" to the Iraqi people, while at the same time suggesting that he may send more troops to occupy their country? How can he say that we are making progress toward Iraqis providing their own security, when we cannot secure that country ourselves and have trained so few reliable Iraqi troops and police? How can he predict that we will win more international assistance, when the "coalition of the willing" is falling apart and the European leaders of NATO refuse to send troops?

Most importantly, the President sounded as if he doesn't know or cannot examine the severe errors that his administration has made so far. He is stuck in his own past misconceptions, and is unwilling to shed the cabinet officers and advisors who are responsible for this mess.

It was probably inevitable that the President's most concrete proposal was a kind of public-relations gesture. With a flourish, he vowed to demolish Abu Ghraib and build in its place a "modern maximum-security prison." The current Abu Ghraib detainees, he added, can look forward to being "relocated" to that shiny new prison as soon as its doors open. (Will the contract go to Halliburton or Bechtel?) This "humane incarceration" initiative for Iraqis must be the latest version of compassionate conservatism; certainly, the President's speech had something for everyone.

Understandably, the military officers in the audience at the Army War College cheered and applauded the idea of bulldozing Abu Ghraib, where their institution was dishonored so terribly. But to the Iraqis, who have seen the destruction of Baghdad's historic museums and the burning of the city's universities, the President's pledge to build a new jail may not feel quite so uplifting.

Perhaps their first sovereign act should be to bestow upon this monument to folly and destruction a fitting name: The George W. Bush Baghdad Correctional Institution.