Bush Takes His Case to the People
I was not able to watch President Bush's speech tonight, but have read it. It was, I think, a great speech. Once again, the President, instead of retreating in the face of his enemies, has upped the ante and taken his case to the people. President Bush laid out the case for engagement in Iraq in a way that most will find compelling. And he postured the surge as an opportunity for pro-war and anti-war factions to unite:
The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is “return on success.” The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.
The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.
That won't happen, of course; the MoveOn types will settle for nothing but defeat, and Bush isn't going to give them that. But the President is appealing to a powerful current among the American people: we don't want to lose, to fail, in Iraq or anywhere else. A large majority of Americans will always prefer a victorious withdrawal to an inglorious retreat if those are the choices.
The question, of course, is whether it is too late for victory. Bush shrewdly concluded by addressing this bottom-line issue:
Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al Qaeda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.
It was an excellent effort, but will it succeed? I see some ground for optimism in this Rasmussen poll, published today. The survey found that 65% of respondents have followed General Petraeus's testimony at least somewhat closely this week. That's good for the administration. Forty-three percent of respondents say they support Petraeus's recommendation, which Rasmussen described--somewhat eccentrically, I think--as a "recommendation to withdraw 30,000 soldiers from Iraq but leave 130,000 troops in place at least through the summer." Thirty-eight percent say they oppose that plan. Not a wide margin, obviously, but the President seems to have slightly more of the public with him than the Democrats do.
One more thing about the Rasmussen poll: thirty-seven percent of respondents have a favorable opinion of General Petraeus, while eighteen percent expressed an unfavorable view. Think about that for a moment: how in the world could anyone have an unfavorable view of David Petraeus? Whatever one thinks of Iraq, the man has devoted his life to serving his country. He is a brilliant soldier as well as a brave one. The eighteen percent that disapprove of Petraeus must define the portion of the country that has gone stark, raving mad. One might say that they have progressed beyond Bush Derangement Syndrome to a Generalized Derangement Syndrome.
It has not yet become the conventional wisdom here in the U.S. that the surge is working. Moreover, it is entirely possible that conditions in Iraq could start to deteriorate again. But the President has gained the time he needed for events on the ground to take their course. If conditions continue to improve in Iraq, the fact will eventually be widely recognized here. And if that happens, there is a very real prospect that Iraq could end as a strategic, and possibly even political, success.
UPDATE: Paul and I were both going crazy tonight because our server was down and we couldn't post. Now that we're back in business, it's interesting to compare our takes on the President's speech. From somewhat different starting points, we arrive at substantially the same conclusion.
To comment on this post, go here.
