Why Bush’s War College Speech Fell Flat -- Know Your Audience, Speak to Them

No one gets to be President of the United States without substantial experience in public speaking. Only a rare few and only occasionally, rise to the rhetorical heights of an Abraham Lincoln. Only a rare few (fortunately) sink to the depths of deception of a Bill Clinton. But all should be at least marginally adequate at the task. In his Iraq speech Monday to the War College in Pennsylvania, President Bush failed to reach that low standard.

The first rule of public speaking is: Know your audience. The second rule is: Speak to the interests of your audience. Many Americans were listening over the shoulders of the faculty and students of the War College (despite the inexplicable decision of all the alphabet networks not to cover the speech). But the first audience was at the College itself.

Only four times was the President’s speech interrupted by applause. That alone tells you the speech was a failure. The audience was sitting on its hands, much more so than the audiences for most State of the Union addresses.

Every general officer in all branches of the US military takes courses at the War College. Didn’t the President and his speech writers bother to consider what people do at the College? They study the history of warfare, and the history of societies which generate warfare. They study successful warfare, like the magnificent fighting retreat of Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce. They study failed warfare, like General Custer’s attack at Little Big Horn that put his men in a position where they couldn’t survive the counterattack which quickly occurred.

Students at the War College study success so it can be repeated. They study failure so it can be avoided. But most of all, they study history for the lessons it offers. Lives of soldiers, outcomes of battles, results of war – all depend on their studies. And with that background they rightly expected far more from their Commander in Chief than he offered.

The President paid lip service to his audience from his second sentence, and then forgot that key point thereafter. “Generations of officers have come here to study the strategies and history of warfare.”

President Bush gave a talk that was a to-do list of minor and obvious steps in Iraq. It was no more creative or inspiring than a list stuck on the refrigerator: “Buy milk. Mail letters. Take Freddy to soccer practice.” There was no context, no history, little vision.

A key indication of the inadequacy of this speech for this audience was the lack of any quotations from any of the great military leaders in history. With all the twaddle in the Kerry campaign and in the American press about a “plan for Iraq,” it was an inexplicable failure of the President not to include a statement that every single member of the War College audience has memorized and taken to heart: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy.”

Why has the American military been so phenomenally successful in every war they’ve ever fought (where they weren’t undercut by the politicians back home)? Is it better training? Is it better equipment? Those offer partial explanations. But the greatest explanation is the ability of US military leaders to adapt, to improvise, to achieve the objective despite unexpected failures and obstacles.

Does this mean that generals shouldn’t plan a mission before they begin it? No. But it does mean that every plan must be studded with alternatives, depending on what happens and what goes wrong as it is put into action. And the use of initiative and creativity should not be confined to the general staff. The armored raid into Baghdad that broke the back of purely military opposition in Iraq was proposed by a unit commander, not a general.

The same point, that there cannot be an overall “plan” which is applied without deviation, also applies to the occupation of Iraq. The Kerry objection that there isn’t a grand “plan” should remind alert listeners of the French position just before the Germans invaded. The French plan was that the Maginot line of forts would defend their frontiers. But the German blitzkrieg made those forts utterly irrelevant, and France fell in a matter of days.

Static planning is a recipe for disaster. Every single member of the President’s audience at the War College was steeped in this concept. Why didn’t the President recognize that, and state it then and there?

The President seems afraid to use the word “occupation.” This, too, is a grave failure. We have two major examples of US military occupations turning warlike and dictatorial societies into free, democratic, successful societies and nations. These happened in Japan and Germany after World War II. Everyone at the War College is richly aware of both of those. Why did the President not say a word about either one?

In the fall of 1945, when Congress was balking at financing food and coal as provisions for the Japanese population, General Douglas MacArthur sent a simple telegram to Congress. It said, “Send me food, or send me bullets.” That’s the essence of a successful occupation. The defeated nation needs to be rebuilt as quickly as humanly possible.

In Germany, unlike Japan, there was a semi-organized guerrilla resistance led primarily by the werewolves who were created for that precise purpose before Germany surrendered. They continued fighting for two years after Hitler’s death in May, 1945. This is a very close parallel to events in Iraq today.

The American press also needs an education in history. Consider, for instance, an article in the New York Times on 31 October, 1945: “GERMANS REVEAL HATE OF AMERICANS: Drop Mask of Surface Amity.” In reporting on current events with breathless anxiety, including the “deteriorating” attitudes of Iraqis, the Times>/i? has not bothered to read its own files for parallels.

Before we forget, how long did it take to rebuild Japan and Germany into free, democratic and civilized nations? IT TOOK FOUR YEARS. Trying to accomplish the same result in Iraq faster than events on the ground will permit risks failure and disaster. Pundits who speak in gross ignorance of history are arguing about “full sovereignty” in Iraq. What would the results have been in Japan and Germany had they been given “full sovereignty” too early? A new Tojo? A new Hitler? That way lies madness.

And what about the costs of the Iraq War? Military commanders are aware, more than anyone else, that the price of war is paid primarily in the blood of young men, and today, young women. There is no such thing as a bloodless war. But students of history know that the number of soldiers killed in action per month in Iraq is LESS than every other war that the US has ever fought, going back to the Revolution.

Some politicians and pundits are saying that this is “too high a price to pay.” In their historical ignorance, they fail to note that this means the loss of life in the Revolution was “too high.” We should have surrendered, allowed George Washington to be hanged as a traitor, and continued to be British colonies. This whole argument could have been, should have been, gut-shot with such facts in the President’s speech. And the audience would have approved, because they, too, know the comparative costs of America’s wars.

How should the American military deal with the terrorists in Iraq? At least the President didn’t repeat his lame phrase about “bringing them to justice.” The soldiers who stormed the beaches of Okinawa did not carry arrest warrants written in Japanese. Those who stormed the beaches of Normandy did not carry German arrest warrants.

The phrase the President did use, “those responsible for terrorism will be held to account,” was only marginally better. The War College audience was well aware, and the people of the US ought to know, that we used military trials (followed by firing squads for those found guilty) on the resistance fighters in Germany after the surrender.

And while we’re on that subject, the President made no mention of the Geneva Conventions. They are explicit and incorporate the law of war, which is older than the United States itself. They do NOT apply to non-uniformed fighters who hide among the civilian population. Under those provisions the British were correct to hang Nathan Hale in New York City, and the Americans were correct to hang Major John Andre in New Jersey.

Although Bush’s speech emphasized repeatedly that it is mandatory that this war be won, he never addressed what it takes to win a war. General George Patton said it as well as anyone during World War II. That speech was immortalized in the opening scene in the movie , with George C. Scott playing the role.

At least part of this speech should have been incorporated into the President’s speech before the War College. That audience would have remembered and appreciated it. The broader audience of all Americans needed to hear it, to have no delusions about what is required of us in the future: [This is from the original version of the speech, not the sanitized version which appeared in the movie. Here’s a link to the whole text: http://www.warroom.com/patton.htm]

“You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, every one of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

“You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood....

“War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!...

“From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don't give a good Goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder WE push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer casualties. I want you all to remember that.

“There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you WON'T have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, 'Well, your Granddaddy shoveled [blank] in Louisiana.' No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, 'Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-[blank-blank] named Georgie Patton!”

Patton was well-nigh incompetent at office politics. However, he was one of the greatest generals the nation has ever produced. A reminder of his military thinking and leadership would have been right for the War College audience, and useful for the nation as well. The President’s speech was the weaker for the absence of any quotes from any of America’s most capable military leaders.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment lawyer and author who lives in the Blue Ridge. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net.

The American press also needs an education in history.

Great post Billybob. Here's a vote for you, a vote that you're not banned. As you say, Bush could've done better. What's the matter, is having truth on your side suddenly a liability? Is that how far we've decended as a society?

Then again, perhaps a War College should become aquainted with the 'new' warrior. Meet the terrorist. He'll not wear a uniform, won't line up for battle, but will, at his chosing, kill you and your family if you let him close enough.

Your mission, should you decide to rid yourself of this slimey-sh*t is to take it to his hometown. Take it to his family. "Look folks, you seem like nice people but this sh*tboy you've produced is out to hurt innocent people and we've got to do something."

"If he acts out and kills innocents, we'll have no choice but to whack him. But know this, if he merely plans to kill innocents and we find out, we'll take him out, along with whomever might be in the room at the time. There are no guarantees." "Best advice, talk sh*tboy down from his position 'cause if you can't, we will."

I strongly agree with your point that Bush should have incorporated the historical context of occupying a country in order to turn it around. It would have been a master stroke for him to quote the old NY Times article as it would have been harder for the lamestream media (I like your name for them)to trash the Times. Even though it is accurate technically, I would have avoided at all costs the word occupying. With respect to this omission, I agree that it is a lost opportunity that belonged in the context of his plan/vision.

ON the other hand I strongly disagree with quotes from Patton and other such strong leaders. For those of us who don't have this homogenized jaded view about the nature of the Iraq mission, those quotes make us stand taller and prouder. It would be preaching to the choir. Perhaps some have to be converted back into the Bush fold, although I can't imagine any rational reason to vote for Kerry. More importantly, would be the press distortion of Bush being a war mongerer that would negatively penetrate the populace.
You can see it now with Bush being resolute that he is labeled an arrogant cowboy.

Another consideration is the longer term view. There will be a number of speeches by Bush. The June 30 deadline along with all of the events that will unfold will need to be discussed as the campaign roles on.

The key agenda item in the press was the 5 point plan. It was important for the public to hear that he had a plan. Labeling it as a 5 point plan is effective in getting this point across. It is an easy concept for the media to both understand and report and it is easily understood by the people. In this regard, the speech was successful (even though it missed a critical opportunity to mention historical context). Another thing that Bush said that was critical was that there is likely to be more bad news near the June 30 transfer - both before and after. Bush should get out there and address this situation weekly. If events are bad he should remind the people that he predicted that the terrorists would try and disrupt Iraqi sovereignty. He should reaffirm his 5 point plan as well as our resolve.

Back the pony up! Who is asking for him to be banned? He posted his opinion and others have countered with theirs. Is it now forbidden or in poor taste to offer a different position? Have you ever watched old newsreels of Churchill speeches? His delivery was horrible. The same with Roosevelt and even Reagan. Reagan was not a great orator in the classical sense he just hit emotional buttons better than most people.

Stop for a second and think. Where is the outrage?? We are told daily the over all majority of Iraqis are our good buddys, and only a small few are the bad guys. If this is true, why don't they drag those few bad guys that live among them into the streets and kill them? Where are the huge, massive demonstrations in Iraq voicing their outrage at these cops, (that are trained by the U.S.) that are being blown up. Where are big demonstrations of Iraqis protesting this terrorism and violence against us and them? Where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations? Where are the stories of Iraqi citizens rooting out the terrorist that live among them, and killing them?

How come we don't see American flags flying from their businesses and homes if they appreciate us so much? Where is all of this Iraqi support for what we are doing for them?

I just don't see it Tex.

Hey Einstein!!!! Maybe it's because they're Iraqi's...... NOT Americans?

What, we are suppose to be the liberators not appreciated? Who you kidding professor?

Let me guess, you agree with Tex that the huge majority of Iraqis support the U.S. and are willing to lay their *own* lives down?

No one can say this with a straight face slick. LOL! Your BS is deep, and sticking you're head in the sand will only make it worse.

I agree that better historical context would be better.
In fact, I'd make a broader critique. Bush needs to give more examples, context, and justification period. So many times, he simply makes a statement. Instead he needs statement, then example/anecdote/justification, re-statement... and Reaganesque examples would help.

The speech did its job - to lay out the plan. but it is also correct to give context as to *why* plans are what they are, why they change and what *wont* change as we succeed in Iraq and *why* this shows we are actually on track to success in Iraq...
(he got into this a bit with the 'quick victory meant saddam's thugs melted into the civilian population).

He needs to justify *why* we are at war.
He needs to justify *why* we can claim we are winning it.
(point out not just hospitals opened, but how much has been done wrt security, the transitional law, etc.)
He needs to justify *why* we can be confident Iraq will be democratic (he was good here, he mentioned the elections of local councils).

Bush needs far more factoids in his speeches. The press is NOT mentioning these things to the people. How many people in the US even know that local elections have been held in Iraq already? Doesnt that simple fact deflate the whining defeatists who claim democracy cant work in Iraq?

But none of this matters as the media deep sixed it by Wednesday anyway. What have we heard about the quite well articulated and thought out "5 points?" Any real, substantiative discussion, analysis or debate? Nothing. Nothing at all. It is quite shameful. Why is there not someone from the GOP pointing this out? Pointing out the intentional obscuration of and obstruction of the POTUS putting forth his strategy when all we have heard for two month that he needs to do just that?

You are so right!!!

I gave a critique of the speech in the previous post. I dont retract it, but I realize that I should say it was quite a good speech and the big scandal is the press' unwillingness to cover it.

Iraqis ALREADY HAVE SHED BLOOD FOR THE NEW IRAQ.

One Iraqi martyr is the Governing Council President.

There have been over a thousand Iraqi victims and martyrs in the past year, killed by assassination or terrorism.

I dont think there is an unknown here. The claims of 'cowardice' were a misplaced appelation to some green ICDC members trained only for border duty who were sent to fallujah and turned tail. That's a yardstick of training, not of Iraqi courage.

I don't need to agree with Tex, I have first hand information that discredits everything you have been spewing.

You sir, are a malcontent that has a bone to pick, just as many of those on the left. You are far too blinded by your own personal issues to see the truth.

95% of Iraq is stable and it's the other 5% that dominate the mainstream news that keeps mental midgets like yourself believing that we are failing in Iraq. Keep it up Joe, at least you're good for something!

You put lots of effort into the article and I commend you for your thoughtful composition, but...

It appears that "history" is your hot button. In all honesty it doesn't appear the President was trying to impress his local audience with his knowledge of the history of warfare.

In my view he was attempting to reach a broader audience with some detail of the plan being executed. The War College was a convenient, friendly venue.

If it is your intent to send this article for publication, it seems to me you are making a much greater mistake than that for which you fault the President. Professions of loyalty and support, as you have evidenced in the past, would dictate, in my opinion, that corrections/criticisms be issued in private rather than in the public press.

I would guess you do not have many opportunities to voice your thoughts to the President in person, but, since the subject matter doesn't appear to be something that will lose the war, or lose the election, perhaps it can wait until you do have that opportunity.

I think it was good of you to post your thoughts here before going public. I trust you'll meditate a bit on what might occur as unintended consequences.

Perhaps. But if so, I *do* hope he goes back to the "justifying the war" question and does a *detailed* justification of the Iraq war:

Lay out the saddam/al Qaueda connections we *now* know;
point out the WMD evidence we now have;
point out the other threats;
point out how Iraqi liberation changes the war-on-terror situation;
points out success at rooting out oil-for-food corruption, etc.

He needs to consider the political angle of making the American electorate comfortable with the justification, purpose and progress towards victory of the effort in Iraq.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.