More "More of the Same"

Yesterday morning I suggested that the president's newest round of Iraq speeches offered an important opportunity for him to give the American people something new, some basic plan for what success in Iraq will look like and some indication of when we could begin to see an exit strategy for American troops.

Not particularly surprisingly, the president opted not to take that opportunity. In a speech at a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Salt Lake City yesterday, Bush continued toeing the "more of the same" line, offering as his only formulation of victory a line we've heard time after time after time: "Our military is strategy is straightforward: As Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand down. And when Iraqi forces can defend their freedom by taking on more and more of the fight to the enemy, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned."

The president also voice anew a line of argument which has become particularly pernicious over the last couple of years, meshing the fight against bin Laden's al-Qaeda with the invasion of Iraq. As the LA Times says today in an editorial, Bush in repeating this nebulous formulation is "neglecting to note that Al Qaeda put down roots in Iraq only after the invasion or that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden."

"Our goal," Bush said Monday, "is clear: to secure a more peaceful world for our children and grandchildren. We will accept nothing less than total victory over the terrorists and their hateful ideology." That's a great goal - but if this president thinks that it gives him carte blanche to send American forces anywhere in the world for "as long as it takes" without the American people eventually demanding accountability and planning, I think he'll soon see a moment when 36% approval ratings looked pretty good in comparison.

As the LA Times editorializes, "the American presence cannot be open-ended; we need ways to measure progress. How many Iraqi police and troops must be trained and ready before substantial numbers of U.S. forces can start withdrawing?" There doesn't have to be a "deadline" - but there must be benchmarks, concrete steps that can be pointed to. I agree, strongly, with the LAT's conclusion:

"[V]ague statements are not enough. As more Americans and Iraqis die, Washington and Baghdad need a plan to stem the chaos the U.S. unleashed with its invasion — a chaos that has given terrorists a new recruiting tool. Wishful thinking and stubborn optimism do not constitute a policy. The sooner realism prevails, complete with metrics for progress and consequences for those who fail to meet them, the better."

As Senator Hagel said on Sunday, "stay the course" is not a policy either. This Administration owes the American people, and particularly those brave men and women wearing her colors in Iraq, the withdrawal strategy that they didn't bother to put together before they conducted the invasion in the first place. The veneer of patience has worn down to the very thinnest of layers, and just how long the simmering discontent will remain even as contained as it is seems to be the big question these days.

We want answers, Mr. President. Not more of the same bland formulations of nothing-speak.

Some good links in the comments below to other posts on this topic, so check those out as well.

[Update: Via RedState, just after I posted I was directed to the NRO diary of David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter (most famous for "axis of evil"). He's got an incredibly thoughtful post today on how the president is handling Iraq right now that I encourage everyone to take a look at. Frum notes the precipitious drop in public support of the war in recent months, and correctly concludes:

"Again, supporters of the war can do our bit to try to change minds. But the biggest megaphone in the country belongs to President Bush - and much depends on whether he uses it well or badly.

He is using it very badly indeed.

Let me single out just one single but maybe decisive problem. Again and again during the Bush presidency - and yesterday most recently - the president will agree to give what is advertised in advance as a major speech. An important venue will be chose. A crowd of thousands will be gathered. The networks will all be invited. And after these elaborate preparations, the president says ... nothing that he has not said a hundred times before.

If a president continues to do that, he is himself teaching the public and the media to ignore him - especially when the words seem (as his speech yesterday to the VFW seemed) utterly to ignore the past three months of real-world events."

Important words, and some sound advice. -- 9:45 a.m.]