December 19, 2005
Let’s
parse W’s speech last night. I watched it, against my better judgment,
and he looked as ignorant and goofy as usual, hands planted flat on the
desk, eyes wide, straining with every muscle to avoid smirking. And as
usual, from the cadence of his remarks, it was easy to tell that he
didn’t have the slightest real knowledge of what he was talking about.
So as always, criticizing a Bush speech really means criticizing his
speechwriters and his sorry ability to convey their meaning. Let’s do
it anyway.
First, W. once again exercised his typical fallacy of composition,
first noting that the enemy in Iraq is a combination of Saddamists
(i.e., the Baath party) and so-called "foreign terrorists" (i.e.,
Zarqawists):
Since the removal of Saddam, this war, like other wars in
our history, has been difficult. The mission of American troops in
urban raids and desert patrols, fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign
terrorists, has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has
caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we
are creating more problems than we're solving. That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view
of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful
if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to
leave them alone.
So, here Bush argues a central point, that the enemy will not
"become peaceful" if we "leave them alone." That may be true of the Al
Qaeda types, but in fact the Iraqi nationalists and Baathists only want
us out of Iraq—after which they most likely will become peaceful—or at
least what passes for peaceful in a post-war, shattered state filled
with militias.
Then W. gets to his central scare tactic, that we are fighting a
menace in Iraq that wants global domination and will attack us even at
home:
This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist
movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims
-- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all
dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of
murder with a set of declared and specific goals -- to de-moralize free
nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of
fear across that region, and to wage a perpetual war against America
and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield
-- and they seek to attack us wherever they can. …
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and
elsewhere, they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And
if we were not fighting them in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Southeast
Asia, and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful
citizens, they would be on the offense, and headed our way.
Where to begin? First, the only radical Islamists burning books and
oppressing women in Iraq are the Shiite fundamentalist parties, backed
by Iran, whose power is being supported by the U.S. armed forces.
Second, the supposed enemy in Iraq is not a "global terrorist movement"
but an indigenous, nationalist resistance that wants nothing more than
the departure of U.S. troops. The spectre of "an empire of fear across
the region" is a wildly exaggerated threat that exists only in Bush’s
fevered imagination. In fact, if we began to withdraw from Iraq, one of
our best allies in exterminating the remnants of Al Qaeda would be the
Iraqi Baathists. And their operations to clean up Al Qaeda in Iraq
would not be pretty.
I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my
decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I
know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before
our country -- victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger
than any president or political party, because the security of our
people is in the balance. I don't expect you to support everything I
do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not
give up on this fight for freedom.
The only two options are "victory or defeat"? Hopefully, that is not
true, because victory in Iraq is inconceivable, unless we plan to stay
and fight for decades. There is, in fact, a wide spectrum of other
options, from immediate withdrawal to phased withdrawal to a negotiated
ceasefire with the resistance to the internationalization of the
conflict through the UN, the Arab League, and other interested parties.
By victory, it is clear that Bush means a victory that preserves,
somehow, the remaining shred of U.S. credibility worldwide. In his
speech, Bush raised the image of the world laughing at the United
States. If we left Iraq, he said:
We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world
that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the
morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have
sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at
our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip.
But no one, except Bush administration die-hards, believe that
America has any word left to keep. By invading Iraq illegally and then
bungling the occupation, Bush has utterly destroyed American
credibility overseas. Our allies fear us, the nations of the Middle
East are horrified at what Iraq has become. And if any Middle East
tyrants are laughing, it’s the ones in Iran, who day by day are taking
over Iraq.
|