The Decider, in his own words, on the surge

Let's look at back in time seven months ago when Bush laid out the "surge" as the plan that would bring stability to Iraq. It bears re-examination, since the right-wing seems to exist in a vacuum without history and lap up each new utterance by the Decider with no consideration of what he said before. Remarks in parens are a summary of the Decider's eloquence, for brevity's sake.

The text of Bush's Jan. 10 speech in which he proposed the surge

- (Iraqis voted. Hooray. Yes, he's still hammering away on that tune. Everyone knows that elections always produce pro-U.S. governments, too. I mean, by voting they virtually agreed to be tortured, imprisoned without trial, massacred, and swindled out their oil. It's the least we can do. But I'm wondering when they voted to host an end-times battle against Good and Evil in their country. Was that on the ballot?)
- (Al-Qaeda's bad. Bad, I tell you.)
- ("Failure" in Iraq means that Al-Qaeda and Iran "win" and that would make us less safe.)

"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work."

- Hey, Iraq is more than just Baghdad, Mr. Bush. And is this remark what makes the surge Petraeus' plan?

"Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents."

- Again, in Baghdad. It sure is sounding like the Iraqis are going to be doing most of the work so far in the speech, doesn't it? We're just going to back them up as they clear out the bad guys, it sounds like. Currently the Sunnis don't seem to trust those Shia police, though. And those Iraqi Army and National Police turned out to be a great place to train and arm the very insurgents we are supposed to be fighting. And they seem to have a penchant for torture as well.

"Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

- Well, we aren't holding the areas that have been cleared. Our commanders have admitted this. The ability no enter certain neighbourhoods of one city has not turned out to be the dramatic breakthrough that Bush thought it would be. Again, it's turned out that The Iraqi forces were compromised from the beginning by harbouring sectarian militias and warning the "bad guys" ahead of time about raids.

I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people

— and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

- The support of the American public is already gone. Al-Maliki is facing a no-confidence he may not survive. And the consequences of these developments are...nothing. Just more "stay the course" talk for American public, too. 40% now want the troops to leave immediately.

"A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced."

- Yes, he really did say that.

"To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution."

- Hey, how are all those things working out, Decider dude? Al-Maliki's incompetent and impotent government is going to have control of all of the provinces by November? Or maybe one?

"Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan — and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq."

- Okay, so now we hear something about some place other than Baghdad, and it turns out to be a province with 1% of the country's population. It turns out that we employed one sectarian gang to wipe out another gang, and the Iraqi police and military, as well as that wonderful government, are a decided non-factor in all of this.
- (Al-Qaeda's bad, and I mean bad. Really bad.)

"From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists, or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?"

- They made the choice for freedom, right? What was the other option they were offered, again? Those people looking at Iraq as an example of "peace and opportunity" must be pretty impressed seven months on. It seems like the question they are asking is more like "When will America withdraw? Ever?"

"The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will."

- Actually, as it turns out, the question is how Mr. Bush will define the word "success". Notice the use of the term "terrorists and insurgents". We seem to have forgotten about the "insurgents" lately. And it may seem like the surge is not working, but that is just the proof that is really is working, see?

"Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration; it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century."

- Has any of this actually happened? "Working across party lines"? "Strengthen our relationship with Congress?" Wow. Which Congress would that be, Mr. President? Bush has repeatedly rejected the ISG as "handcuffing" him, even though at the time he announces the surge he said he would work with them. He isn't even meeting the benchmarks he set for himself.

"In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary — and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American — and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice."

- In other words, stop-loss, 18 month tours, recalling the IRR for new tours for those that have already served, coercing those serving into re-enlistment, and Walter Reed Medical Center for those who can't go on. A VA woefully unable to handle an epidenic of brain injuries, and commanders that pressure the mentally ill troops to keep their damn mouths shut. We owe them that? Really?