Bush's Speech

Sorry this is not exactly a breaking post on Bush's speech. First off, I'm glad he didn't name a timetable. I was concerned that it could happen. I do think we will begin troop withdrawals prior to Iraq being truly stable, but I just haven't heard a convincing argument for naming a day, and number for bringing the troops home. Given what I know (and it isn't much) I'm one of the 7% or so that would like to see more troops in Iraq. So kudos to Bush not bowing to growing political pressure from both parties to set a time-line. But what did surprise me is the general admission that the immediate post war planning was so inept. Two examples. One, the President said, " When our coalition first arrived, we began the process of creating an Iraqi Army to defend the country from EXTERNAL threats, and an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to help provide the security within Iraq's borders. The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training -- they proved to be no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars. So the approach was adjusted. Working with Iraq's leaders, we moved the civil defense forces into the Iraqi Army, we changed the way they're trained and equipped, and we focused the Army's mission on defeating those fighting against a free Iraq, whether internal or external." I'm sorry, but who did he think would be the external threat to Iraq, Gary Larson's Pillow Vikings? Which bordering enemy doesn't have machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars? I don't even know what to do with that. Then he mentions, " When our coalition first arrived, Iraqi police recruits spent too much time of their training in classroom lectures -- and they received limited training in the use of small arms. This did not adequately prepare the fight they would face." again, what post war scenario plan was he looking at. How do you not properly prepare police in the use of their gun. Even in America, with no post war anarchy, police get extensive training with their guns. Did they talk to cops in Detroit? Miami? NYC? Again, disgraceful. And finally, his general statements of progress in safety just scared me. For example, there was a Purple Heart Boulevard? And even now, the best we can say is "attacks are down" in Purple Heart Boulevard. I thought he said "Mission Accomplished." However, I really liked the following statement, " Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to, "stay the course." If by "stay the course," they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they are right. If by "stay the course," they mean we will not permit al Qaeda to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban -- a safe haven for terrorism and a launching pad for attacks on America -- they are right, as well. If by "stay the course" they mean that we're not learning from our experiences, or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong. As our top commander in Iraq, General Casey, has said, "Our commanders on the ground are continuously adapting and adjusting, not only to what the enemy does, but also to try to out-think the enemy and get ahead of him." Our strategy in Iraq is clear, our tactics are flexible and dynamic; we have changed them as conditions required and they are bringing us victory against a brutal enemy." Just thought he was at his best here. Great lines, great way to nullify the political attacks, and a great compliment to the leaders and troops. If it weren't for that middle part where he basically admits that a group of monkeys planned the post war occupation, then it was a nice speech. On a personal note, I don't like his delivery, but that's just me. Didn't like Clinton's either. Why can't we get a president who can really deliver a speech. Everything is so much more fun.