Bush Speech : First Thoughts
Wednesday January 10, 2007
Update: 9 pm Pacific
As I read and re-read the text of the speech (first, I watched the speech live), I was struck by the fact that the only "news" here seemed to be this sentence: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
Otherwise, there is nothing "new" here, on the US side, but the decision to throw a little more money in the economic development pot, as well as20,000 21,500 more troops. Troops that are already being deployed, thank you very much.
On the Iraqi side, the news was this: the US says that Iraq is going to pass a law "to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." Hmmm. Shouldn't the announcement that such a measure was going to be considered have originated from an Iraqi leader? And how does he know that the legislation will be implemented? I mean, Bush couldn't guarantee that a piece of legislation would pass Congress, even when his party controlled both Houses.
This must be a little part of the US-inspired bill that opens Iraq to "the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." Thirty year contracts for Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell. Is this really what the Iraqi citizenry wants? From the Sunday Independent:
My initial post follows - the observations are, I believe, still valid:
Point 1: President Bush still links American actions in Iraq with his global war on terror and says Iraq needs to "fight terrorists instead of harboring them" -- despite the fact that Iraq was not a home for terrorists before March 2003. He also linked US action in Iraq to 9-11, despite the fact that those terrorists were Saudis and al Qaeda had not stronghold in Iraq.
Point 2: There is "no magic formula" for success ... and "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." Not one word -- none! -- about what a disaster life is today for Iraqi citizens -- or how bad life would be if the country totally collapses. Since March 2003, more Iraqi civilians have died than American soliders, by more than an order of magnitude (estimated).
Point 3: The failure in 2006 was caused by not having enough Iraqi and American troops to protect the "neighborhoods cleared of terrorists and insurgents." Bush peppered the speech with sectarian violence, terrorists and insurgents ... as though they are all equally bad (ie, an insurgent is automatically a terrorist) ... and as though they were equally responsible for the anarchy that is Iraq.
From The Iraq Study Group: "the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq ... is the absence of national reconciliation." Maybe that's what the President meant when he uttered terrorist-insurgent-sectarian violence.
Point 4. Bush wants to give "commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance" -- like Katrina? Like the poor contracting that's already happened in Iraq, per the GAO? Like the missing weapons in Iraq? The missing millions in Iraq? The problem with spending money in Iraq for the past four years hasn't been too little flexibility, it's been too much!
Point 5: We are fighting "extremists who kill the innocent." So what does that make US action in Somalia this week, where we dropped bombs on civilians to try to root out or kill "suspected" terrorists.
Updated at 8.30 pm Pacific with links.
White House Fact Sheet; Text of Speech
As I read and re-read the text of the speech (first, I watched the speech live), I was struck by the fact that the only "news" here seemed to be this sentence: "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
Otherwise, there is nothing "new" here, on the US side, but the decision to throw a little more money in the economic development pot, as well as
On the Iraqi side, the news was this: the US says that Iraq is going to pass a law "to share oil revenues among all Iraqis." Hmmm. Shouldn't the announcement that such a measure was going to be considered have originated from an Iraqi leader? And how does he know that the legislation will be implemented? I mean, Bush couldn't guarantee that a piece of legislation would pass Congress, even when his party controlled both Houses.
This must be a little part of the US-inspired bill that opens Iraq to "the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." Thirty year contracts for Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell. Is this really what the Iraqi citizenry wants? From the Sunday Independent:
Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.
The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972...
Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.
My initial post follows - the observations are, I believe, still valid:
Point 1: President Bush still links American actions in Iraq with his global war on terror and says Iraq needs to "fight terrorists instead of harboring them" -- despite the fact that Iraq was not a home for terrorists before March 2003. He also linked US action in Iraq to 9-11, despite the fact that those terrorists were Saudis and al Qaeda had not stronghold in Iraq.
Point 2: There is "no magic formula" for success ... and "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States." Not one word -- none! -- about what a disaster life is today for Iraqi citizens -- or how bad life would be if the country totally collapses. Since March 2003, more Iraqi civilians have died than American soliders, by more than an order of magnitude (estimated).
Point 3: The failure in 2006 was caused by not having enough Iraqi and American troops to protect the "neighborhoods cleared of terrorists and insurgents." Bush peppered the speech with sectarian violence, terrorists and insurgents ... as though they are all equally bad (ie, an insurgent is automatically a terrorist) ... and as though they were equally responsible for the anarchy that is Iraq.
From The Iraq Study Group: "the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq ... is the absence of national reconciliation." Maybe that's what the President meant when he uttered terrorist-insurgent-sectarian violence.
Point 4. Bush wants to give "commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance" -- like Katrina? Like the poor contracting that's already happened in Iraq, per the GAO? Like the missing weapons in Iraq? The missing millions in Iraq? The problem with spending money in Iraq for the past four years hasn't been too little flexibility, it's been too much!
Point 5: We are fighting "extremists who kill the innocent." So what does that make US action in Somalia this week, where we dropped bombs on civilians to try to root out or kill "suspected" terrorists.
Updated at 8.30 pm Pacific with links.
White House Fact Sheet; Text of Speech
Also, see What A Difference Four Years Makes, Who Will Bush Listen To On Iraq, Bush Needs Congress On New War Strategy, Bush Move Contrary to Iraq Study Group, Issue: War In Iraq