The Braggart's Speech

I did not listen to the president's speech last night. I know it's not very mature, but just the sound of his voice irritates me. And that little snear - which many reports indicate were in evidence last night - makes the voice all the more intollerable.

I heard the sound bites this morning, as digested by NPR. Later, I read the text of the speech. As a number of others have noted, GWB mentioned 9/11 five times. He never once came out and directly claimed that Iraq was responsible for that attack, or even had anything to do with it. However, he said "Iraq", "September 11", and "terrorist" in such close proximity that the casual listener could be forgiven for believing there was a connection.

Not once did he mention weapons of mass distruction, which was originally the motivation for the US pre-emptive strike. Of course, if he had mentioned WMD, he might have to explain why none were found. Good reason not to mention them.

The latest justification GWB is promoting for this attack is the notion that we are attacking the terrorists on their turf, rather than waiting for them to come to our shores. Now, again, he's not coming out and saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11; but the inference is clear.

I suppose it would be different if GWB said he has sent Americans to Iraq in order to draw terrorists there. This is a bit of logic some military analysts were purporting over a year ago. This makes as much sense as Custer going to the Little Big Horn to draw out the Indians.

Well, it pretty much worked. But Custer and his men did not ride home that night.

---

GWB resists the idea of an immediate withdrawal, or a time-line for withdrawl. He calls for a process many critics have called "Iraqization". In other words, once the Iraqis are competent to defend themselves, the "coalition forces" will withdraw.

While we're talking about "Iraqization", Rob makes an excellent comparison between the current situation and a similar point in the VietNam conflice. He clearly delineates the similarities and differences; I encourage you to read his essay.

Iraqization may not be the failure that Vietnamisation was. The best case scenario is the rival factions will forge some sort of coallition government, and they'll all live happily ever after. Several generations of history suggest that is an unlikely scenario.

The next best case is the division of Iraq in manner similar to the former Yugoslovia. It might be possible for these seperate states to work together in a confederation similar to the European Union.

The final option is civil war, which - given the history and the situation - seems the most likely scenario. If our forces can maintain order until 2008, our Fearless Leader will no doubt claim "Mission Accomplished", if not victory.

The civil war will be his successor's problem.