by Mark Silva
President Bush, maintaining that the “surge’’ of forces which he ordered in Iraq is a success, said today that his decision about pausing a drawdown of forces this summer – as military commanders are recommending – will be based on the urgency of a “strategic victory.’’
Bush, labeling calls for speedier withdrawals of troops a "retreat,'' said flatly today that the arguments coming from Democratic candidates for president that the United States is fighting the wrong war -- that the real front against terrorism is in Afghanistan -- are mistaken.
'This argument makes no sense,'' Bush said to the applause of a friendly audience.
“As I consider the way forward, I will always remember that the progress in Iraq is real, it's substantive, but it is reversible,’’ Bush said in a war address today at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. “And so the principle behind my decision on our troop levels will be ensuring that we succeed in Iraq.
“I'm going to carefully consider the recommendations of (Defense) Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those on the ground, Gen. (David) Petraeus and Ambassador (Ryan) Crocker. And I'll announce my decisions soon, after I have, you know, fully met with them and heard their -- heard their recommendations.
“As this debate unfolds,'' the president said, "I ask people on both sides to keep an open mind and to take a close look at the situation on the ground.''
“Some however seem unwilling to acknowledge that progress is taking place,’’ Bush said.
“Early in the war, they said the political situation wasn't good enough. Then after Iraq held three historic elections, they said the security situation wasn't good enough. Then after the security situation began to improve, they said politics again wasn't good enough. And now that political progress is picking up, they're looking for a new reason. But there's one thing that is consistent. No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same: Retreat.
“They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere and that, if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter,’’ said Bush, with a pointed attack on the chief war criticism that is coming from Democratic candidates for president. “This argument makes no sense.’’
“If America's strategic interests are not in Iraq -- the convergence point for the twin threats of al Qaeda and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden's deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth -- then where are they?’’ Bush asked. “The reality is that retreating from Iraq would carry enormous strategic costs for the United States. It would incite chaos and killing, destroy the political gains the Iraqis have made and abandon our friends to terrorists and death squads. ..
“It would be a propaganda victory of colossal proportions for the global terrorist movement, which would gain new funds and find new recruits and conclude that the way to defeat America is to bleed us into submission.
“It would signal to Iran that we were not serious about confronting its efforts to impose its will on the region. It would signal to people across the Middle East that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word. A defeat in Iraq would have consequences far beyond that country, and they would be felt by Americans here at home.
“For the same reason, helping the Iraqis defeat their enemies and build a free society would be a strategic victory that would resound far beyond Iraq's borders. If al Qaeda is defeated in Iraq after all the resources it has poured into the battle there, it will be a powerful blow against the global terrorist movement….
“The surge has opened the door to this strategic victory,’’ Bush said. “Now we must seize the opportunity and sustain the initiative and do what it takes to prevail.’’
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
If a "President" talks and no one listens, has he made a sound?
Posted by: a blinkin | March 27, 2008 12:17 PM
Wouldn't a strategic victory take some strategy?
Posted by: chimpy"hussein"mcflightsuit'snavigator | March 27, 2008 12:31 PM
"we must seize the opportunity and sustain the initiative"
Sounds like "Stay the course"
5 years of "Progress" and our embassy in the heart of the capital is still getting shelled.
Posted by: Cisco | March 27, 2008 12:34 PM
Meanwhile as heard this morning on NPR, the killing and fighting is becoming more intense and they are protesting in the streets chanting for al Maliki to resign. There has been an attack on the oil pipeline near Basra.
This isn't about what WE want. It's about what the Iraqi people want. We need to get out and MOOB.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | March 27, 2008 12:36 PM
As long as my daughters don't have to go there,what do i care?
Posted by: Raving Loon | March 27, 2008 12:38 PM
For the same reason, helping the Iraqis defeat their enemies and build a free society would be a strategic victory that would resound far beyond Iraq's borders.
-
I agree. Too bad Iraq's biggest enemy is the United States. We invaded them. They never asked for us to bomb them. They never asked us to destroy their infrastructure and kill thousands of innocent women and children.
Posted by: Bruce Y | March 27, 2008 12:39 PM
Who cares what he thinks?
Posted by: Cheryl | March 27, 2008 12:45 PM
“Some however seem unwilling to acknowledge that progress is taking place,’’ Bush said.
And you sir, are in denial over what a failure it has been.
Posted by: syj | March 27, 2008 12:47 PM
"And now that political progress is picking up"? 3 of 12 benchmarks for political progress met after, how long?
"Strategic victory", is that akin to a qualified success or just frosting on a quagmire?
Let's play Bush's game; it's not retreat, it's "strategic withdrawal."
Posted by: dt | March 27, 2008 12:54 PM
“It would be a propaganda victory of colossal proportions for the global terrorist movement, which would gain new funds and find new recruits and conclude that the way to defeat America is to bleed us into submission."
We don't have to worry about that. President Bush has already bled us into submission. He has destroyed the military and the economy. We need to "stop the bleeding" now. Re-group, re-tool, look for alternative methods other than president Bush's blood thirsty call for war.
Posted by: syj | March 27, 2008 1:03 PM
'This argument makes no sense,''
This man has been WRONG about every single thing he has said about the war. What makes no sense is listening to anything this embarassment says.
Posted by: Paul | March 27, 2008 1:08 PM
Bush: 'Strategic victory' in Iraq essential, not 'retreat'
Send in a squadron of college Republican Chickenhawks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFGit_tZDqs
Posted by: John E | March 27, 2008 1:24 PM
"A defeat in Iraq would have consequences far beyond that country, and they would be felt by Americans here at home."
This is from an administration that has been wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq.
"Weapons of mass destruction"
"Greeted as liberators"
"Last throes of the insurgency"
And of course...
"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
Why should anyone believe they are right about this?
Posted by: Cisco | March 27, 2008 1:42 PM
Shocking
It starts with an innocent sentence fragment plucked like a ripe tomato from a broader statement:
-
"For the first time, I have seen Osama bin Laden and General Petraeus in agreement."
-
[Click] The Rube Goldberg machine activates.
Someone sends a tip to Drudge, who catapults it with one of his little flashing sissy lights. Red State, Instapundit and Powerline howl: How DARE those traitorous liberals besmirch the good name of General Petraeus by comparing him to Osama bin Laden! Never mind the context, there are some things in this country that are just flat-out unacceptable. This is so typical of the Blame-America-First crowd and an insult to the troops! Sign the petition!!!
Michelle Malkin finds the statement so odious that she pulls her cheerleader costume out of mothballs and tears up her lawn doing a spastic loony dance.
Fox News picks it up. The screen crawl slithers by every three minutes:
...DEMOCRAT EQUATES IRAQ WAR HERO GEN. PETRAEUS WITH AL QAEDA LEADER...TERROR ALERT ELEVATED TO ORANGE...ANNA NICOLE SMITH SPOTTED AT GRAND RAPIDS BURGER KING?...
The surrogates---O'Reilly, Morris, Hannity, Cavuto, Barnes, et al---swarm. "Shameless!" "Treason!" "They're helping the terrorists win!" they shout.
Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't really give a crap, goes on a multi-day tirade, knowing that the fracas will translate into more money for him.
Stories appear in Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times and Rupert Murdoch's New York Post: UNHINGED! Liberals Reignite "General Betray Us" Campaign In Attempt To Doom Surge!
CNN and MSNBC, not wanting to miss out on the drama, pick up the story. Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs sob openly. Joe Lieberman claims Democrats are responsible for the deaths of all 4,001 American troops in Iraq and then, just before he plugs the GOP Happy Caribbean Fun Cruise hosted by Tom DeLay, calls for an end to the bipartisan bickering "that the Democrats started."
The cascade continues as The Washington Post and The New York Times report on the "story." Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack suggest the irresponsible statement has set back the training of the Iraqi forces by at least six months. The AP's Nedra Pickler provides balanced analysis by interviewing the founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Dick Cheney. Then the networks weigh in---the anchors reflecting the seriousness of the situation with their solemn tones and furrowed brows. Their eyes say it all: "Awful...just awful." Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom Watch unleashes a 'down' arrow: "Surge savior savaged---again!---by ax-grinding libs. Al Qaeda to send flowers to DNC?"
President Bush calls the statement "cowardly" and says the only way to make up for such heinous rhetoric is another $100 billion emergency supplemental for Iraq and retroactive immunity for all registered Republicans and their supporters.
And then the cherry is placed lovingly on top of the shit sundae as the House and Senate condemn the statement with official resolutions.
Just one inconvenient hitch: a Democrat didn’t say it. John McCain did.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iraq_4;_ylt=ArTwezmiwSpsKXaH15cgTIME1vAI
Nothing to see here. Please move along.
Posted by: BinPM | March 27, 2008 1:42 PM
Thanks to our agents on the inside of the "Straight-Talk Express", we've captured a copy of John McCain's to-do list for Tuesday, March 26, 2008.
Tuesday, March 26, 2008:
6 a.m. -- Wake up. Tell Joe Lieberman it's time to go home. Got to rethink this relationship -- he snores.
6:30 a.m. -- Look outside to gage the weather. Damnnit! Those kids are on my lawn again. Don't they have anything else to do, don't they know the Surge Is Working?!?!
7 a.m. -- Get dressed for third time. My aides have some sort of sick obsession with getting all the buttons right and same colored socks.
7:30 a.m. -- DAMMNIT! GET OFF MY LAWN YOU DUMB KIDS,..the Surge Is Working on my lawn too.
8 a.m. -- Reject aide's explanation that what I think is kids is actually the shrubs I planted last fall. Can't be....don't the shrubs know that the Surge Is Working??!
8:30 a.m. -- Balance campaign checkbook...the Surge Is even Working on my checkbook!
9 a.m. -- Dry my tears. Consider whether lunch will be Fancy Feast or Whiskas...remind cats that the Surge Is Working!
9:30 a.m. -- Work on next stump speech. Consider a warning about "al Qaida in New Jersey."...tell them the Surge Is Working!
10 a.m. -- Aide wants me to study up on the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Easy. Sunnis bad, Shiites good -- or was it the other way around? Let me see... the Sunnis are fighting us in Iraq. The Shiites are... wait... there's got to be a difference. Let's see... the chalice from the palace...oh yeah, the Surge Is Working!
10:30 a.m. -- Look out side. No... don't look. You know they're still out there...don't theses kids know that the Surge Is Working?!?!
11 a.m. -- insert line in next stump speech about "al Qaida On My Lawn." Second though, not a good idea. Don't want to have to bomb my own lawn at least the Surge Is Working!
12 p.m. -- I wonder if lemonade will get the cat food off my breath?
The Surge Is Working!
1 p.m. -- Nap
3:30 p.m. -- Tell Joe Lieberman to stop following me around.
4 p.m. -- Call W. Thanks, but no thanks to the offer to come campaign with me. Bad enough having Lieberman's lips on my butt all day.
5 p.m. -- Splurge for dinner! McDonald's!
The Splurge Is Working!
6 p.m. -- Send thank you note to the Rev. Hagee for calling down fire and brimstone on the Democrats (except for Joe).
7:30 p.m. -- Bed time. Whew... what a day....oh yeah, the Surge Is Working!...."my friends".
Posted by: elsaf | March 27, 2008 1:48 PM
If we pull out of Iraq, and they do not have trained professionals to fight, they will come here and there WILL be another 9-11, and more civillians will die, American civillians. I agree, "stay the course".
Posted by: Mike | March 27, 2008 1:54 PM
Another feeding frenzy taking place by the most worthless and ignorant mankind has to offer: the Loony Left.
Anyway, Mark Silva says Bush received applause from a "friendly audience." Is that like the LIBune Washington Bureau continually going to Anthony Cordesman, a liberal foreign policy henchman, for comments all the time and from Cordesman only each and every time?
Posted by: John D | March 27, 2008 2:01 PM
GWB made the strategic decision to take out a regime that boasted at the time of being, and even becoming a more effective, launch ramp for attacks against Israel and other Western-allied or accomodating entities in the Middle East. The WMD argument was only the cinch point for those who weren't motivated by that underlying rationale. The fact that the broader international community wasn't motivated to act against a proven rogue terrorist-dictator (Hussein) who had kicked out international monitors can possibly be attributed to those entities' historic, strategic and economic allies not being as directly threatened. But that was then, and the world has acted in decisive, irrevocable ways since then. Re WMD, the underlying rationale for invasion was NOT WMD, but that factoid was the tipping point for some. To repeat "no WMD" as a valid basis for abandoning Iraq now just identifies the speaker's nonaffiliation with the original concerns about Iraq as a primo terrorist staging area. That is still the basis for the war, and why it is ESSENTIAL--yes, as explained by GWB above. Abandon this effort now and we'll have a Kmer Rouge equivalent in no time, plus it will metastasize in horrific ways. To quote MT, history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. Stay the course--no, WIN the course; it's the only way.
Posted by: factoid | March 27, 2008 3:00 PM
Another feeding frenzy taking place by the most worthless and ignorant mankind has to offer: the Loony Left.
Anyway, Mark Silva says Bush received applause from a "friendly audience." Is that like the LIBune Washington Bureau continually going to Anthony Cordesman, a liberal foreign policy henchman, for comments all the time and from Cordesman only each and every time?
Posted by: John D | March 27, 2008 2:01 PM
John D: The reality is that the only audiences Bush ever speaks to are carefully-selected friendlies. If ever tried to speak to an unfiltered audience he'd never get a word in edgewise between the boos (not "booze," GWB), shout downs and derisive laughter. Not to mention the signs wouldn't make for good tv.
No, John, the reality is that your hero is the boy in the bubble. It is wholly unnecessary for the "Libune" to point out that it's a friendly audience.
Posted by: a blinkin | March 27, 2008 5:23 PM
"BUSH SPEAKS"
"SUCCESS"
"VICTORY"
"MAJOR STRATEGIC VICTORY"
"SLAM DUNK"
"A BETTER WAY FORWARD"
"STAY THE COURSE"
"AXIS OF EVIL"
"A WORK IN PROGRESS"
WHY THOSE ARE JUST WORDS NOT COMPLETE SENTECES.
MALIKI IS OUR MAN, MALIKI IS THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT, HE SPEAKS ENGLISH, HE HAS TO BE THE MAN!
"JUDICIAL WATCH" CAME UP WITH THAT "MAJOR STRATEGIC VICTORY" SLOGAN, I JUST USED IT THIS MORNING.
THIS IS CONGRESS FAULT.
THE SURGE IS WORKING EVEN WHEN THE SURGE IS NOT WORKING.
I KNOW I THOUGHT WE ALREAD DID. I THOUGHT ALL COMBAT OPERATIONS IN IRAQ WERE OVER, "MISSION ACCOMPLISH"
I KNOW IN 2005 WAS THE YEAR OF GREAT PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING OUR GOAL OF "VICTORY", BUT I'M NOT THE GENERAL ON THE GROUND.
I COULDN'T LISTEN TO ADMIRAL FALLON, I COULDN'T LOOK BACK AMERICA. I KNOW WE SHOULD OF, COULD OF, WOULD OF. BUT WE DIDN'T AND HERE WE ARE LOOKING FOR A BETTER WAY FORWARD OUT OF A CIVIL WAR. A LITTLE "SUCCESS" IN COMING UP WITH A "STRATEGIC EXIT STRATEGY" FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN UNDER IRAQI CURFEW TONIGHT.
IT'S CONGRESS FAULT, NOT MINE, NOT MY GOVERNEMENT.
Posted by: Roger Morris | March 27, 2008 5:28 PM
Mike,
1) Iraq does have trained fighters and right now they're fighting with each other in Basra.
2) There's no reason Iraqis or AQI couldn't try to attack in the US right now. Pulling our troops out of Iraq does not change that fact. Leaving them there just gives them closer targets to hit.
3) We'll have another 9/11 each year in September whether we're in Iraq or not.
4) Stay the course is not such a smart plan when the course isn't getting you anywhere...or when you're headed for the rocks.
Posted by: Tom O | March 27, 2008 6:25 PM
Thanks a lot GWB; Keep raising the expectations you dunderhead. Now it has to be a total strategic victory or nothing?
What a dunce.
Does this mental retrograde know we have backed and armed both sides in this Iraqi religious civil war?
Posted by: C.Hussein.Morris | March 27, 2008 9:11 PM
"I've signed back up,in Feb I will be off. If I can replace one young kid over there,then I feel I have done my part."
Posted by: John E. | Oct 13, 2006 5:45:30 PM
By the way, how did you manage to post 30 or 40 times per day, every day while shooting it out with the insurgents? Musta been rough.
We're all so proud of you, soldier!
Posted by: MJ | March 27, 2008 9:25 PM
Just like Adolph, using a military background again for his canned questions by invitation only. Hitler would have been proud, how about that Karl Rove. whiteagle38
Posted by: whiteagle38 | March 27, 2008 10:26 PM
It looks to me like Maliki is making a bid to grab complete control of the Shiite block by eliminating Sadr and his militia.
Sadr, if I recall, actually backed the ongoing cease fire before this latest flare up in the religio/civil war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7317614.stm
Posted by: C.Morris | March 27, 2008 10:56 PM