Bush Gives Plan for
Iraq Victory and Withdrawal
By DAVID E. SANGER | the New York Times | December 1, 2005 | See
also: Five Years after 9/11: Has Al Qaeda achieved
its goals? | 2007: See also- Surge
ANNAPOLIS, Md., Nov. 30 - Two and a half years after the American invasion of
Iraq, President Bush laid out Wednesday what he called a strategy for victory,
vowing not to pull out on "artificial timetables set by politicians"
but at the same time offering the first glimpse of his plan for extricating American
forces.
In a speech here to cheering midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy, Mr.
Bush described a military strategy for Iraq that loosely follows methods being
adopted in Afghanistan: focusing American forces on terrorists who could reach
beyond the country's borders and leaving the Iraqis to deal with insurgents and
the remnants of Saddam Hussein's government.
"We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations
against the enemy nationwide to conducting more specialized operations targeted
at the most dangerous terrorists," he said. "We will increasingly move
out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct
fewer patrols and convoys."
He gave no timetables for that transition, counseling "time and patience,"
and he repeatedly rejected the calls of many Democrats and whispered urgings of
some Republicans for a deadline to begin a pullback.
"Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere,
but I believe they're sincerely wrong," Mr. Bush said. "Pulling our
troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory."
After his speech, those calls were renewed by Democrats, who criticized the speech
as selling a strategy that has not truly changed.
A 35-page document that the White House released hours before the president spoke,
titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," was more direct in its
description of how long the struggle might take. "It is not realistic to
expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully
reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after
Saddam was finally removed from power," it states.
Taken together, the strategy document and Mr. Bush's speech, the first of four
that he plans to give before the Iraqi elections on Dec. 15, were clearly an effort
to change a discussion in the capital that may be spinning beyond the administration's
control.
When Mr. Bush was traveling in Asia 10 days ago, his daily responses on Iraq often
seemed off the cuff, restating lines that he has often used as he has sought to
explain America's progress and setbacks over the last two years. But Wednesday's
speech was different, an effort to lay out a plan that is part military, part
political and part economic.
But the strategy paper also referred euphemistically to some of the most severe
setbacks, describing the Iraqi economy as still "shackled" while only
briefly mentioning what it is chained to: huge subsidies providing free food and
fuel, a remnant of Mr. Hussein's policies that have been retained to promote loyalty
to the new government.
It states that other nations in the Middle East have "only recently mobilized
to support the emergence of a democratic and stable Iraq," though some allies
have complained that this assistance is halting at best.
Mr. Bush chose his venue carefully: the midshipmen at the Naval Academy cheered
his arrival, a military band punctuated his arrival and departure, and the stage
of a huge hall on the famous campus was adorned with a giant background emblazoned
with the words, "Plan for Victory."
It continued his recent trend of giving speeches on the war at military settings
where public access is limited and protests are unheard of, including air bases
in Alaska and South Korea and a National Guard installation in Pennsylvania.
Democrats quickly declared the speech a triumph of spin over true strategic overhaul.
Leading Congressional Democrats said Mr. Bush never directly addressed the statements
by commanders that the large presence of American troops is itself helping to
fuel the insurgency. They argued that the "Plan for Victory" sign was
reminiscent of Mr. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on an aircraft
carrier in May 2003.
"I think the president's sincere," Senator John Kerry said after the
speech. "I don't question he's standing up and fighting, in his view, for
what is best for our country. But we have differences of opinion about what the
reality is on the ground and how we get there."
Democrats also said Mr. Bush could not continue to suggest on the one hand that
significant progress was being made while still suggesting that an American military
presence would be required for years.
"They want to have it both ways," said Representative Nancy Pelosi of
California, the House Democratic leader. "One day they're saying, 'We have
all of these troops that are trained.' Well, then bring our troops home."
In her comments on Wednesday, Ms. Pelosi shifted her publicly neutral stance on
a proposal two weeks ago by Representative John P. Murtha for withdrawing troops
"at the earliest practicable date." She said she was supporting the
call by Mr. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, Vietnam war veteran and early supporter
of the Iraqi invasion, because he had "superior knowledge of the subject."
She added, "I think many members will now follow his lead."
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of a handful of current members
of the Senate to have watched close up as previous administrations grappled with
a strategy for extrication from Vietnam, said, "The only thing artificial
in this debate is the president's belief that we can achieve victory by staying
the same failed course."
Mr. Bush came the closest to acknowledging mistakes in the war - without calling
them that - since an interview in August 2004 in which he acknowledged a "miscalculation"
in assessing how quickly an insurgency might develop.
He said that when American and allied forces arrived, "we began the process
of creating an Iraqi Army to defend the country from external threats," and
creating civil defense forces for suppressing trouble within the country's borders.
"The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training,"
he said. "They proved no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled
grenades and mortars. So the approach was adjusted."
But the acknowledgment of past error had its limits. When promised anonymity,
some of Mr. Bush's senior aides now say that two of their biggest mistakes were
the decision to "de-Baathify" the country and to dismantle the army
- measures they now concede fueled the insurgency. In the careful wording of the
strategy document, "Earlier efforts to correct past wrongs have sometimes
alienated Sunnis who were not complicit with Saddam's crimes."
Mr. Bush spoke at length about the training Iraqis now receive. And he dismissed
critics who have leaped on the assessment made in September by his top general
in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey, that only one Iraqi battalion was capable of action
fully independent of American forces; Mr. Bush insisted that the practical fighting
power of the Iraqis was much greater.
Throughout his speech on Wednesday, he tried to balance a tone of steadfastness
with hints of optimism that a troop drawdown could begin next year. "We will
never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less
than complete victory," he said, seeming to echo Winston Churchill, whose
bust he keeps in the Oval Office.
But at another point he said that while the strategy was intended to help Iraqis
take the lead in the fight within their country, his hope was that they would
do so without "major" foreign assistance. That suggested some form of
continuing American presence.
Mr. Bush did not say how long that might last, though some of his aides point
to South Korea, the Balkans and other places where some American presence remains
years after the conflict is over.
While Mr. Bush used the word "victory" many times in his speech, the
strategy report defines it in various stages.
The first stage, which White House officials insist is nearly complete, includes
"meeting political milestones, building up democratic institutions, and standing
up security forces."
Victory in the medium term, the document said, would be recognizable when
"Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security,
with a fully constitutional government in place."
"That's where we might be next year," said a senior administration official
who helped assemble the document, "with some luck and a good tail wind."
Long-term victory,
the document said, will come only when "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable
and secure," and "a full partner in the global war on terrorism."
Mr. Bush did not discuss the issue that many in the White House say may well determine
whether a pullout can begin next year: the stability and focus of the permanent
Iraqi government to be elected on Dec. 15.
In recent weeks, Mr. Bush's aides have expressed concern that once the election
is over, the coalition government that is expected to emerge may spend crucial
months jockeying for advantage and for top posts, delaying a transition to Iraqi
control of security.
It could also delay the lesson that Mr. Bush said he wanted the world to take
from the Iraq conflict. "Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in
the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq," he told
the midshipmen.
"Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from
Damascus to Tehran," he said, "and spread hope across a troubled region."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times | Top
Bush's New Tack Steers Clear of 'Stay the Course'
By Peter Baker | Washington Post | October 24, 2006
President Bush and his aides are annoyed that people keep misinterpreting his
Iraq policy as "stay the course." A complete distortion, they say. "That
is not a stay-the-course policy," White House press secretary Tony Snow declared
yesterday.
Where would anyone have gotten that idea? Well, maybe from Bush.
"We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed,"
he said in Salt Lake City in August.
"We will win in Iraq so long as we stay the course," he said in Milwaukee
in July.
"I saw people wondering whether the United States would have the nerve to
stay the course and help them succeed," he said after returning from Baghdad
in June.
But the White House is cutting and running from "stay the course."
A phrase meant to connote steely resolve instead has become a symbol for being
out of touch and rigid in the face of a war that seems to grow worse by the
week, Republican strategists say. Democrats have now turned "stay the course"
into an attack line in campaign commercials, and the Bush team is busy explaining
that "stay the course" does not actually mean stay the course.
Instead, they have been emphasizing in recent weeks how adaptable the president's
Iraq policy actually is. Bush remains steadfast about remaining in Iraq, they
say, but constantly shifts tactics and methods in response to an adjusting enemy.
"What you have is not 'stay the course' but in fact a study in constant
motion by the administration," Snow said yesterday.
Political rhetoric, of course, is often in constant motion as well. But with
midterm elections two weeks away, the Bush team is searching for a formula to
address public opposition to the war, struggling to appear consistent and flexible
at the same time. That was underscored by the reaction to a New York Times report
that the administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to
disarm militias and assume a larger security role. The White House initially
called the story "inaccurate." But then White House counselor Dan
Bartlett went on CNN yesterday morning to call it "a little bit overwritten"
because in fact it was something the administration had been doing for months.
The president has shifted language on Iraq before. At a news conference in August,
he returned to his prewar argument that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorist Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi. Hussein "had relations with Zarqawi," Bush said.
Weeks later, the Senate intelligence committee concluded that Hussein "did
not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye to Zarqawi" and that
the U.S. government knew that before the invasion. At his next news conference,
Bush was asked about that. "I never said there was an operational relationship,"
he said.
Bush used "stay the course" until recent weeks when it became clear
that it was becoming a political problem. "The characterization of, you
know, 'it's stay the course' is about a quarter right," Bush complained
at an Oct. 11 news conference. " 'Stay the course' means keep doing what
you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working
-- change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done."
By last week, it was no longer a quarter right. "Listen, we've never been
stay the course, George," he told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "We
have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve
the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics. Constantly."
Snow said Bush dropped the phrase "because it left the wrong impression
about what was going on. And it allowed critics to say, 'Well, here's an administration
that's just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,'
when, in fact, it's just the opposite."
Republican strategists were glad to see him reject the language, if not the
policy. "They're acknowledging that it's not sending the message they want
to send," said Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Cos.,
a GOP public opinion firm. The phrase suggested "burying your head in the
sand," Hinkson said, adding that it was no longer useful signaling determination.
"The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute
dwindles, that sort of language doesn't strike a chord as much as it once did."
If anything, it is striking a Democratic chord, party strategists say. A commercial
by Democratic Senate candidate James Webb in Virginia shows a clip of Bush saying
"We'll stay the course in Iraq," followed by a clip of Republican
Sen. George Allen, saying "I very much agree with the president. . . .
And we need to stay the course." A caption on the screen says "Civil
War; No End in Sight; We Need a New Course."
An ad for Democratic Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. in Tennessee shows Republican Bob
Corker saying "I think we should stay the course," then rewinds and
repeats "we should stay the course." Ford then comes onto the screen.
"I support our troops, and I voted for the war," he says. "But
we shouldn't stay the course as Mr. Corker wants. . . . America should always
be strong. But we should be smart and honest, too. We need a new direction."
Juxtaposed against "stay the course," "new direction" has
become the Democrats' poll-tested mantra, even if they don't define precisely
what that new direction would be. "There's a reason why every Democratic
candidate in the country is talking now about change in direction," said
Democratic National Committee pollster Cornell Belcher. "When you ask 'change
in direction' versus Bush's direction, you get solid majorities of 60 percent
or so for change."
So now even some Republican candidates are changing direction, at least in terms
of their language. "We can't continue to keep doing the same things and
expect different results," Allen said last week. "We must adapt. We
must adjust our tactics." Corker now says on his campaign Web site: "We
need to fix our strategy in Iraq so we can get the job done and bring our troops
home."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
For Immediate Release | October 23, 2006 | Press Briefing
by Tony Snow | White House Conference Center Briefing Room | www.whitehouse.gov
(approx. 2/3 down the page; a follow-up on an earlier question midway)
Q Tony, it seems what you have is not "stay the course." Has anybody
told the President he should stop calling it "stay the course" then?
MR. SNOW: I don't think he's used that term in a while.
Q Oh, yes, he has, repeatedly.
MR. SNOW: When?
Q Well, in August, because I wrote a story saying he didn't use it and I was quite
sternly corrected.
MR. SNOW: No, he stopped using it.
Q Why would he stop using it?
MR. SNOW: Because it left the wrong impression about what was going on. And it
allowed critics to say, well, here's an administration that's just embarked upon
a policy and not looking at what the situation is, when, in fact, it's just the
opposite. The President is determined not to leave Iraq short of victory, but
he also understands that it's important to capture the dynamism of the efforts
that have been ongoing to try to make Iraq more secure, and therefore, enhance
the clarification -- or the greater precision.
Q Is the President responsible for the fact people think it's stay the course
since he's, in fact, described it that way himself?
MR. SNOW: No.
Top