There was, admittedly, an elegance about the timing of President Bush's speech Tuesday (June 28) on Iraq. It was the one-year anniversary of restored Iraqi sovereignty. Bush had every reason to give a one-year progress report. All the better that he could do this on the eve of our own Independence Day. Sweet symmetry.
But there was, as well, an inelegance about the speech's timing. It came amid a new round of violence in Iraq and declining support for the Iraq project in some opinion polls. It came as Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel was waxing apocalyptic ("Things aren't getting better, they're getting worse . . . the reality is we're losing in Iraq.") and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was calling Iraq -- what else? -- a "quagmire." Bush once again was perceived to be on the defensive. It was another one of those make-or-break performances that a breathless media never tires of setting up for Bush. "Seeking to salvage support for his policies in Iraq, an embattled President Bush went before . . ."
Bush's speech went just fine. His make-or-break moments usually do. In fact, the half-hour address was especially strong. After a shaky start, he made his case with a crisp confidence. There was a hard-hitting elegance in the way he deployed quotations to make his case. He quoted Osama bin Laden on Iraq being a central front in the war on terror. He quoted German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who opposed the war, on how important a stable and democratic Iraq was for German and European security. Cunning.
Bush restated his strategic vision ("[W]hen the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world"). He reviewed the progress across the Middle East (Libyan disarmament, Palestinian elections) and Iraq (the January vote, Sunni participation in the process, infrastructure improvements and the training of Iraqi security forces). Anyone who pays attention knows all is happening, but the public needs constant updates and reminders.
Bush also acknowledged the lack of progress ("Our progress has been uneven . . .") and addressed the violence ("Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real . . ."). But he put this in its proper context. This savagery has not helped terrorists gain their strategic aims. Bush detailed what we've achieved and what terrorists have failed to achieve -- stopping the transfer of sovereignty, destroying the coalition and forcing our allies to withdraw. "The lesson of this experience is clear," he said. "The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom."
Bush's Fort Bragg speech was plain-spoken, candid and direct. (Why not set a deadline for U.S. troop withdrawal? Why not increase U.S. troops in Iraq? Bush answered both questions straight on.) And, in spots, even eloquent. "[W]e fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won. . . . When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom."
It will never win over Bush's "quagmire" critics; that's not the point. The point is to buck up the larger public. The guess here is that this Bush speech will help do this, which brings us back to the timing of the thing. Bush needs to do this more often. He shouldn't wait for some anniversary, a bit of good news or slipping poll numbers. The public deserves and the president should provide regular reports. If this fight depends on the public's resolve -- and it does -- the fitful, undisciplined public-relations campaign we've seen so far from Bush will not suffice.
Heaven knows, Hollywood and the big media aren't going to help. As historian and "1776" author David McCullough has said while hawking his new book, "If the present-day news media were around in the 1770s, the United States . . . never could have won the Revolutionary War." No, President Bush is going to have to help himself, as he most certainly did in his Fort Bragg speech.
David Reinhard
