I would like to take this time to comment on President Bush's speech last night on the Iraqi war. Like everyone else, I suppose, but I think you may be surprised, dear reader, of the tone of this essay. I will examine his speech paragraph by paragraph and give you my interpretation of the meaning of each. I tell you now that I am beginning to see the wisdom in this troop increase, and believe you me, this is the first time in all my writing I have used the term wisdom in positive conjuncture with the name of Bush.

The first three paragraphs serve to outline the situation and spell out what happened. G.W. screwed up in the belief that he could so easily bring the Iraqi people together. This remains the overall assumption for his whole plan, and he could not have it otherwise.(meaning that he lacks the capacity) To think that a people might not want democracy Goes against the very grain of his, and admittedly my, most basic assumptions. The difference is, I suppose, that I am willing to examine even my most basic assumptions. Perhaps the president is, and has decided that democracy is closer to universal fairness and universal morality, we cannot know. In any case his words speak to the possibility that he is actually doing this because he believes that liberating the Iraqi people means bringing them democracy. The other obvious reason he assumes is the promulgation of anti-terrorist support. It remains amazing to me that desperate people we agree with are called freedom fighters and those we do not agree with are deemed terrorists.

In the fourth paragraph a hint of humility. Accepting responsibility? Wow, something his father and Ronald Reagan were VERY poor at. Is the face of republicanism changing or are we only witnessing someone desperately trying to save his personal reputation?

The next two paragraphs, the fifth and sixth, brings two important points to the front. One, the president has heretofore been an utter failure in commanding our troops in the Iraqi struggle. I know that the armed forces do not separate the struggles in Iraq with the struggles elsewhere (they call it all GWOT) but the fact remains that regardless of the validity of the argument the American people, as a majority do separate the two. So for most of us, the president has been an utter failure, and given his business track record that should be a surprise to no one.

The second point from this section is that given the situation as it stands now, failure in the sense of an extremist victory in Iraq is unacceptable to the United States. NO DUH? Removing the devil we knew was a risky venture to say the least and only now the president is admitting the enormity of the risk? This definitely speaks to G.W.'s Motis Operendi...act first and think later. If he had come to the American people from the outset and said that, he might have found his support higher now, but as has been repeatedly demonstrated, George W. Bush is a pathologic al liar and his hubris outpaces every other leader ever born.

The next two sections points to the area around Baghdad as the crux of the problem. The assumption here is that 1: The insurgents value Baghdad intrinsically, not just because our troops and efforts are centered there, and 2: that they will not simply fade into the surrounding area if we increase force in Baghdad. Sounds a little south Asian to me.

The next two sections, Paragraphs 9 and 10, seem to outline the reasons for the failure to date in Iraq also act as a segue to the next three paragraphs which simply restate the prior message. Since Baghdad is where the violence is now, securing Baghdad will quell the violence. They are used as a segue to the 10th paragraph.

Paragraph 11 outlines the difference between the previous policy and the new. First we will not be held back from defeating the insurgent on the ground. Second, we will have enough forces to hold the areas we clear. This is speculative, and remains to be seen.

Sections 13 and 14 warns that 1: results will not be immediate and 2: "Ordinary Iraqi citizens" must experience a change of mindset on the military operations there, seeing that "military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities." Again, one must remember that this is speculative in nature. The viewpoint of the average Iraqi is relevant to that persons overall experience. We have gravely misunderstood this point of view in the past. One wonders if we have any clear concept of it now.

The 15th paragraph speaks to the greater picture for the first time. The only true solution in Iraq is a political one. The basic question remains: Is life better now, or when Sadam was in charge. The sad answer is that to the VAST majority of Iraqis, the answer is no. It is true that if you were singled out as a political enemy of Sadam's then your life was not worth a plugged nickel, but it also remains true that the VAST majority did not face those consequences. I am not saying it was right. I am only saying that unless you can make the situation better for the VAST majority of the people, you cannot expect popular support. He speaks of "de-Baathification", but perhaps an inclusive policy rather than an exclusive one would be in order. The president seem to be recognizing the importance of the Iraqi populace, but remains fixed in his very American point of view.

The next paragraph, number 16 has one very interesting reference. "We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams." Great! At least Halliburton stands to win in Iraq!

Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 feel a bit cheerleader-ish. Rah, Rah! If as he says "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.", I can only wonder why these weren't the goals for the last 4 years. Maybe paying Halliburton was too tiring to allow for the realistic oversight the problem required.

Lets just skip paragraph 20.. I don't have the heart...

Paragraph 21 is a re-iteration of Bush's foreign policy... if they are not friends we do not talk. Heavy sigh, the only way to peace in ANY conflict is to TALK to the enemy. Too bad G.W. didn't pay attention in kindergarten.

The rest of the speech focuses on two things. One, we must succeed in Iraq. Only the definition of success has yet to be completely determined. If Iraq were abandoned, the chance that it may turn into an al Qaeda state is too much to risk. The second is to paint the picture as "the decisive ideological struggle of our time" The real question for me is who's ideological struggle it is, theirs or ours?