"There will be no surrender..." Means No Victory

I listened intently to President Bush's speech tonight on his new strategy for Iraq. It's important - we are at war with troops in the field. There is very little that is more important right now, and he deserves our attention.

As Anderson Cooper said after the speech on CNN "it's not an academic debate, there are people dying".

And, as Rudy Guiliani said on Fox News after the speech, this is not just Bush's problem. It's an American problem, and we all should hope that we can be successful.

I watched the speech. I read the text of the speech online. And I've watched hours of pundits, of all political persuasions, opine about the speech on the cable channels.

Now, it's my turn.

First, my visceral reaction to the live speech: I was agitated and angry. I paced the floor. I heckled the speech, during the speech. (I've never done that to a Bush speech before.) My reaction: I supported the administration in their efforts on the war, and this speech is what I get? Not happy.

My reaction to the written text of the speech: better, but not satisfactory by any means.

Here are, in my opinion, the two most serious flaws in the President's new plan:

1. A wrong definition of "winning". This is the heart of why the American people have lost faith in this war - no faith that we will "win", as we understand winning. Winning means defeating the enemy. Crushing them. Forcing them to submit, to surrender, so that there is no chance that they can hurt you again for a long, long time. That's winning, and you don't commit troops to a war that you can't "win". With that in mind, this statement in the President's speech is very disappointing:

"Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship."

That's a problem. A significant problem. If you engage in a war and your purpose is not to make an enemy surrender, you're screwing up. Big time.

Is there an enemy in Iraq that needs to be made to surrender? Yes, more than one in fact. But you can narrow it down to two major groups: Al Qaeda in Iraq, who has a nameable leader, and Moqtada Al-Sadr's 60,000 man army. If you can't make these two groups surrender, you can't win the war.

Al Qaeda was mentioned in the speech. "we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters". And, "our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists." Really? That's it? That's what we've been fighting for for five years now? Memo to the President: your mission is not to deal our enemy a serious blow. It's to utterly defeat them. Crush them, to the point of surrender.

Moqtada Al-Sadr, on the other hand, was not mentioned by name in the speech. Memo to the President: if you can't even name your enemy, you certainly are not going to defeat him. This generic label of "terrorists" has worn thin. The enemy has a name, and Al-Sadr must be killed or made to surrender, and the Mahdi army defeated decisively.

The definition of victory is the enemy's surrender. I see no evidence in this speech or this plan that victory will be accomplished.

A story on the newswires indicates that Iraq's President has served notice to the militias that they must "disarm" or face assault by Iraqi and American forces. This is fantasy. These bloodthirsty death squads will not voluntarily disarm from their ideological jihad. They must be defeated! The Iraqi government cannot do this.

2. We're staking victory on the leadership of the Iraqis in this war:

"Only Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it."

Really? We have troops in the field, and we're going to stake their success on an Iraqi plan? Are you kidding me? How's it going to work?

"The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. "

Apparently, the 20,000 extra troops we are sending will help them do that.

Let's be straight here: this is pure folly. Staking our victory on Iraqi government performance is a non-starter, to say the very least. Unbelievable.

Having said all of that, disappointment and all, my assessment is that President Bush's new plan is the best plan on the table at the moment. The war has to be won. Maybe the combination of the Iraqis stepping up, more forces to back them, shutting down support from Iran and Syria, and more civilian aid will turn it around. It's the best hope we have. The Iraq Study Group's recommendations were not going to get us to "winning". The Democrats have no plan for "winning", only retreat. President Bush has to win, and we all need to hope that he can.