What A Difference Four Years Makes

Updated: 4.30 pm Pacific
As the nation waits -- not with particularly bated breath, since most of us oppose sending more troops into harm's way in Iraq -- for tonight's Presidential speech on Iraq, we should take a moment to reflect on the rhetoric coming from the White House four years ago, at the start of this extended military action ... as well as that of only seven months ago.

First, let's look at the more recent rhetoric. In a speech to military personnel at Ft. Bragg, NC, in June 2006, President Bush said: "Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave." (tip)

Do you think he'll address either of these points in tonight's speech? Neither do I. But this is a diversion from the look at what was said then, so we'll be able to better compare it with what is to be said tonight.

Yesterday, Presidential spokesman Tony Snow took us back to May 2003 in his response to a question about "Mission Accomplished." [Not only has the White House has cropped the "official" photo/video to remove the "Mission Accomplished" banner from the press release, the video has been disabled.] Snow said:

You know that the "Mission Accomplished" banner was put up by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. And the President, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn't he? He said it was the end of major combat operations, but he did not say it was the end of operations. Instead, he cautioned people at the time that there would be considerable continued violence in Iraq, and that there would be continued operations for a long period of time. That single episode has been more widely mischaracterized than just about any aspect of the war.

Tony, you and I know that the White House would not have allowed the Navy to hang a banner without Executive approval. Hello! Every facet of a Presidential press event is scripted. Every facet. So that's dissembling number 1. Let's review what President Bush really said on 1 May 2003. (Hint, it will reveal dissembling number 2.)

Bush, 1 May 2003:
Major combat operations have ended; in the battle of iraq, the US and her allies have prevailed... We've removed an ally of al Qaida... Because of [the US military], the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free... We thank all the citizens of Iraq who welcomed our troops and joined in the liberation of their own country.

Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent...

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on...

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

What Was The Mission?
Sounds pretty much like "mission accomplished" to me. Of course, we have to rewind the tape to March 2003 to try to figure out "the mission." I've done my best. Please read the speeches yourself -- maybe you can find a more concrete statement of mission -- but everything I've found boils down to this: overthrow Saddam Hussein and save the world from his (nowhere to be found except in the minds of some US "intelligence" staff) weapons of mass destruction.

19 March 2003:
American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger... The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

23 March 2003:
I am pleased with the progress that we're making in the early stages of a -- of the war to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and to free the Iraqi people from the clutches of a brutal dictatorship.

31 March 2003:
We will end the Iraqi regime, an ally of terrorist groups and a producer of weapons of mass destruction.

Snow Dissembles Again:
Most of the "Mission Accomplished" speech is full of "we've won!" rhetoric, but there is one small disclaimer. It's the one Snow hung his hat on -- even though Bush does not say word one about "considerable continued violence" ... "violence" appears only once, when the President claims we can overthrow governments and simultaneously exempt civilians from violence. Tell that to the Somalian citizens hit with bombs this week.

Bush, 1 May 2003:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.)

But even this small nod to reality includes one major flaw -- the WMD claim -- and it continues the theme of the speech that the worst is behind us. The opposite of the reality of the next four years.

Rewind to January 2003
Hold the rewind button a little longer. More from the White House press release archive:

• 30 January 2003:
  Vice President Cheney:
  Saddam Hussein's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction poses a grave danger -- not only to his neighbors, but also to the United States. His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us. And as the President said on Tuesday night, it would take just one vial, one canister, one crate to bring a day of horror to our nation unlike any we have ever known.
  
  That is why confronting the threat posed by Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror, it is absolutely crucial to winning the war on terror.
  
  
• 28 January 2003:
  Bush, State of the Union
  Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States...
  
  The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
  
  We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.
  
  
• 23 January 2003:
  "Why We Know Iraq is Lying"
  By Condoleezza Rice
  Originally appeared in the New York Times on January 23, 2003

There is no public statement from the White House during this period acknowledging potential costs -- in lives or dollars or good will or the unintended consequence of creating a terrorist rallying cry -- of our initiating a war with Iraq. Somehow, I thought I was going to find some kind of acknowledgment of costs or the need for post-overthrow planning. Nada.

I did find what I was looking for, from an 11 February 2003 US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. Colonel Scott R. Feil (Ret.), Executive Director, Role of American Military Power, warned (emphasis added):

The tremendous challenges that would face the United States and its partners in Iraq can be organized into major analytical categories of executing tasks in providing security, economic and social well-being, justice and reconciliation, and governance and participation. While these groupings are useful for analysis, organization, and application of resources, it is imperative that any approach to Iraq in a post conflict situation begins with a presumption that only a comprehensive, holistic plan executed through integrated, yet decentralized actions will be successful. While security is the foundation for post conflict reconstruction efforts, the other three issue areas, or pillars, have direct impact on the long-term internal and external security capabilities and situation of the nation.

In fact, the lack of planning and preparation for such integration and coordination has bedeviled previous efforts in this area. The World Bank estimates that 50% of countries that emerge from a conflict situation are back in a conflict status within five years... The coalition, under American leadership, cannot leave the success of these efforts within that country, with its population, strategic location, and resources to the odds of a coin flip...

The government has attempted to pull together the requisite expertise to define the conditions and requirements for success. This started many months ago, and in several locations. The Naval War College, the National Defense University, the Institute for Defense Analysis, the Joint Staff and Joint Forces Command, and the Army War College are just a few of the many military organizations that have conducted conferences, table top exercises, and simulations to flesh out the plans and requirements... A lot of information has been exchanged and the magnitude of the problem has been well defined.

But the effort to implement procedures and organize resources is still fragmented and there has been more activity than movement. From an American perspective, what is needed is a clear articulation of American goals for Iraq, the delineation of the tasks America expects to accomplish, what America will assist with, and what is expected of coalition and Iraqi partners, and the dedication of resources, i.e., people, equipment and funds, to the effort.... But with respect to post conflict reconstruction,the United States and the international community are still “getting ready to get ready.” The President and the Congress need to establish interagency authority and accountability now, and resources need to be pre-positioned ...

The United States must articulate the balance between American responsibility as outsiders setting parameters and assisting the process and the local ownership of that process. America must not let responsibility for the outcome become an open-ended commitment to establishing a particular brand of representative government in a place where the history, culture, and traditions may not furnish a suitable foundation. Conversely, “local ownership” cannot become a rationale for meager support and abandonment. This balance can only be achieved by working through the difficult planning and coordination efforts and making decisions about the levels and types of support ahead of time...

Post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq can be successful – if success is adequately defined and if resources match intent. But time is short, the planning process has not kept pace with the military and diplomatic timeline, and the agencies who can resolve some of the outstanding issues are running out of time to do so.

The President and the Congress were warned. They failed to listen ... and now, it's four years later and the full mission has clearly not been accomplished. More troops is not the answer. Are we too late? What do you think?

Also, see Iraq Statistics from US Liberals Guide Deborah White, Iraq Military Deaths, Bush Move Contrary to Iraq Study Group, Who Will Bush Listen To On Iraq?, Bush Needs Congress On New War Strategy, Issue: War In Iraq

Technorati Profile