Analysis of Bush's radio address - fear and lies

The Decider tells another scary story:

If radicals and terrorists emerge from this battle with control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves, which they could use to fund their dangerous ambitions and spread their influence. The al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq. They would be emboldened by their victory, protected by their new sanctuary, eager to impose their hateful vision on surrounding countries, and eager to harm Americans.

The lack of logic here is staggering.

1) 'If we leave, Al-Qaeda will take over Iraq.' Okay, now who are we paying to produce the intelligence reports that support this? First off, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al-Qaeda that attacked us on September 11. It is a terrorist group, but has nothing to do with Osama. Zawahiri merely took the name as a "franchise" while remaining independent from Al-Qaeda. The Pentagon has already said this. Second, there are only about a thousand of these Iraqi Al-Qaeda 'franchisees' in Iraq. Again, this is the Pentagon's estimate. They have never expressed an aim to take over the country, and no sober assessment has ever indicated that this is their aim. Their aim is to foment chaos, and keep American troops in Iraq to kill them and make it appear to the Islamic world that we intend to make Iraq a colony. Even in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda never tried to take over the country. There are Al-Qaeda in dozens of countries, but we don't invade them or tell scary stories about them taking over there. In fact, we call these countries our allies.

2) 'Leaving while Al-Qaeda is in Iraq would be defeat'. Yeah, well why does Bush say that "victory" could be defined as merely a reduction of Al-Qaeda attacks then? Are we now seriously telling Americans that we plan on killing every single last member of Al-Qaeda, as if they wore some kind of uniform or something? When did Iraqis vote on making their country the place for foreigners to fight it out?

3) 'If we leave, Al-Qaeda will be eager to impose their hateful vision on other countries'. Well, in the eyes of the nearly all of the surrounding countries, we are the ones whose hateful vision they are worried about. They can handle Al-Qaeda just fine, but they are worried about the U.S. using Iraq as permanent military base to interfere with their agendas. In fact, there are lots and lots of Iraqi refugees in these countries to remind everyone there what a great 'service' the American occupation is to the region.

3) 'We can't let Al-Qaeda get control of Iraq's oil reserves'. Hey, didn't we hand over sovereignty of the country to Iraq? Al-Qaeda doesn't have any seats in the Iraqi Parliament, nor any significant electoral support to speak of. Actually, The Iraqi Oil Law that we are ramming down the Iraqis' throats pretty much guarantees that we will be ones geting the control of their oil and using the money for our own ends. Those ends have very little to do with making Iraqis happy.

4) 'The presence of our troops limits Al-Qaeda's influence'. Actually, it's the opposite. Al-Qaeda presents itself to the Sunnis of the world as the primary defenders of Iraqi Sunnis from the foreign infidels. While the Iraqi Sunnis may not be lapping that up, the Sunnis in other countries certainly are. And they are greatly helped by Bush's base spreading anti-Islamic propaganda. Designed to encourage non-Muslims to wipe out Islam, instead it pretty much 'emboldens' Muslims worldwide to take Al-Qaeda seriously when they say that America is out to destroy Islam and kill all Muslims. Al-Qaeda is Sunni group, of course, but Shia are offended by the presence of foreign infidels at their holy shrines. The longer we stay there, the better Al-Qaeda looks and the more pissed off Shia worldwide get.

5) 'This is a battle'. No, actually we declared the war over. Now it's an occupation. Look up the word. When we occupied Japan after WW2 we didn't refer to it as a battle. Same with Germany. This is an 'enemy' that doesn't control any territory, has no regular armed forces, no government directing them. They can leave whenever they want and we can do nothing. We don't even know most of their names, they wear no uniform and appear to be identical to the populace we are defending. They are not after control of the government and have little popular support among the populace. They like to kill our troops, though, so we oblige them by making them readlily available in large numbers.
-------------------------------------

We lost the moral high ground with Iraqis when Abu Gharaib came out. Iraqis are beaten, humiliated, lied to, or otherwise victimised by either our troops or our contractors all the time. These people don't just smile about it and shrug it off. That's not the cultural norm. At best we are seen as a necessary evil, with more and more Iraqis leaving the "necessary" part out as sectarian forces and Al-Qaeda work their magic on the populace. Even if we were saints, we are no longer seen as the good guys by the people there.

Here's a link to the entire radio address

You might also notice no mention of "democracy" in the speech.

The goal of the new strategy he is implementing is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists alongside the United States in the war on terror. This strategy is still in its early stages, and Congress needs to give General Petraeus’ plan a chance to work.

Ah, yes, Petraeus. Hey, it's not his plan. This is the plan that Bush handed him - a last resort strategy- and he agreed to give it a try. I really hope that Petraeus corrects this little error before he ends up like Tenet. Just because Congress confirmed him, doesn't mean that the guy has magical powers. He's been given a lousy plan, and he's the best guy to execute the lousy plan. If it wasn't him, Bush would have sent some craven toady that could care less about the troops under his command. Let's not let Bush blame Petraeus when this surge ultimately fails, nor let Bush invoke his name to silence those who rightly say the lousy plan is, indeed, lousy.
Notice that the goal is now "progress" toward noble ends, not the achievement of those ends. Also notice that Bush is not saying that we are any closer to making those goals reality.
How much time do we have to give "Petraeus'" plan to work? The Great Decider does not say. Twenty years? A thousand?
...And the Republican Presidential candidates all backed this vague plan that's based on lies, distortions, and fear-mongering. If the surge fails come October, these idiots have absolutely no wiggle room at all. And there will be months and months of tape with these idiots making lame excuses, empty threats, and bogus predictions. Treason. It's the last card they can play, and the one most likely to make them look crazy.

The Decider, in his own words

A few excerpts from The Decider's speech 11-30-05
This was before 11-06 when Bush had a mysterious change of heart and began to use the lack of progress in Iraq as the new justification for our involvement. Back when he made this speech he was using the tremendous progress in Iraq to justify our involvement. The reason for the mysterious change of heart was the election results, no doubt.
So, when Bush sees his policies as working, that means we have to stay in Iraq. Likewise, when Bush's policies fail to work, we have to stay in Iraq. See a pattern here?

Bush: Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens. By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, and an ally in the worldwide struggle against -- against the terrorists.

-----------------------------

Yeah, I'm sure that people from 'Damascus to Teheran' are looking at Iraq and saying "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if we could be more like them". And the Shia majority in Iraq sees Iran as their ally, not the U.S. Also, you would have to be delusional to see Iraqi democracy as 'strengthening'. The Iraqi government is instead dominated by the two main parties involved in the civil war (which Bush says is not a civil war). It's an open secret that as soon as the U.S. does withdraw from Iraq, that Turkey will invade Kurdistan with the nice shiny military we have built up for them. How does this play out in the "ally" scenario? Will we defend our Iraqi ally against our Turkish ally? Or is all this 'ally' talk a load of crap that really means we install a government in Iraq who says what we tell them to say and does what we command?

Bush: As we make progress toward victory, Iraqis will take more responsibility for their security, and fewer U.S. forces will be needed to complete the mission. America will not abandon Iraq. We will not turn that country over to the terrorists and put the American people at risk. Iraq will be a free nation and a strong ally in the Middle East -- and this will add to the security of the American people.
------------------------------

Again, Iraq is not looking anything like an ally at this point. And now, in May '07, the old Decider Dude says that more troops are needed, not fewer. And those Iraqi troops that were supposed to "stand up" turned out to be more of the problem than the solution, because their primary loyalties were to the sectarian militias. And somehow, as the situation has deteriorated in Iraq since this speech, we haven't seen a corresponding increase in danger here in the U.S. - Are we supposed to continue this war until everyone in the world who doesn't like us is killed? Is that what Congress meant when they 'authorised' this war? Why does Bush get to decide what Congress intended by their authorisation?
The truth is that our strongest defence against a radical Iran was Saddam, as bad as he was. If we want to frame this in terms of U.S. security, then that would be the primary concern. A weak central Iraqi government, in a shattered nation with its own armed forces at war with itself, led by Shia who see Iran as their natural ally, is not a scenario painting Iraq as a bulwark against Iran and its aims.

Bush: And we should not fear the debate in Washington. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even at times of war. Your service makes that freedom possible. And today, because of the men and women in our military, people are expressing their opinions freely in the streets of Baghdad, as well.
-----------------------------------------

Okay, so how is it that now anyone who disagrees with Bush is a traitor, and debate is the biggest fear of the Republicans? How is it that "the debate in Washington" is now not a sign of the freedom that those in the military have made possible, but seen as akin to aggression against the troops? Why are Republicans trying to undermine what their Great Decider has stated to be "one of the great strengths of our democracy"?
Will the Decider please decide which Decider is the Real Decider?
Of course, now Bush has simply defined "victory" as a decrease in sectarian violence, and doesn't really talk about the "strong ally" (or ally, period), or about the shining democracy that will make dictators across the Middle East tremble. Heck, we don't even care about car bombings, unemployment, a deadlocked Parliament, or refugees in the new picture of "success". Robert Gates has even gone so far as to suggest that Iraqis kicking us out would be considered "victory".
I wish that the Democrats would point out that Bush's "hang tough" act really consists of him lowering the bar for what is considered victory while stalling for his lowered standards to be acheived. And he can't even make that work.