Posted on 05/27/2004 8:22:14 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
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.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment lawyer and author who lives in the Blue Ridge. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net.
- 30 -
Dead on, Steve. Very good.
I don't think his speech failed either.
On the other hand, I've always thought that June 30 was a dumb goal, based on the very history you are citing here.
It is easy for me to sit here and say that its dumb, as I have no experience in politics. June 30th may have been the date they had to live with, like it or not.
I'm having a difficult time, however, hearing even Rush characterize the state of the situation over in Iraq as anything other than spectacular.
We ousted a dictator and have reestablished Iraq in two years, with less than a thousand dead, and broke up a multinational effort to produce nuclear weapons for use against the US, without another attack on US soil, and without any major losses of military assets.
The war cost us way less than 2% of GDP, and we did it while also bringing the economy out of a recession. Sorry, but no other way to characterize that except to say that its a success.
The $87B is $17B less than what we paid to subsidized farmers in the Farm Bill that was signed last year. The war was a bargain by historical and any other standard, even if you triple it or quadruple that figure in the coming years.
That's my take on it. Not sure what your goal for publishing this is, but I'm pretty sure that its not going to hit the mark.
Sorry, but that's nothing but incredibly good. Abu Gharaib, badly handled situation producing outstanding results, in that it has COMPLETELY discouraged the recruitment of new insurgents.
There is an avalanche of great news not being delivered from Iraq, and revelations that don't make the C section of the local newspaper. Discoveries of chemical and biological weapons, the oil for food program, etc.
Unless GWB is planning fireside chats, his speech did what it was supposed to, which was to plainly clarify our expectations.
The man is doing the absolute level best he can to maintain some dignity in the process of electing a chief executive. I know that point is absolutely lost on almost everyone, and for that reason, maybe its counterproductive for him.
Frankly, he's the wrong guy for the lessons about the history of US occupation. The case you are making needs to be a feature of a newsmagazine, with Time-magazine like graphics, side stories, notable quotes, etc. You can't do that in a speech, unless you intend on spending 30 minutes on it.
I don't underestimate the audience. I think they can grip the history and its significance, if they have the patience to watch.
To get history's message across, you'd have to do it from several different mediums and speakers. Bush trying to do it in one speech might have really lost the audience, in my opinion.
Najaf, Fallujah ?????? Remember "We will bring them to justice" "Al-Sadr illegal militia"???? Now we recongnize their right to live. Showing mercy to the enemy is being inhumane to our own people. If a Democrat was in the White House you would be Screaming at the top of your lungs.
I plan on voting for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils, but can understand why some people wont vote for Bush.
No, you hit it on the nose. Perceptions are everything. When consumer confidence rises and more people are 'feeling good' about the economy and Iraq, watch the approval ratings come back up.
Precisely.
Good to see your head's still screwed on right! LOL. Have a great weekend.
We gave up and pulled back from Fallujah because why? What was that Tex?
Are these the Iraqi policemen you were talking about last night who wanted to fight for their freedom?
********************************************************
Ahmed Saadoun Jassin, a uniformed Iraqi Policeman hired and trained by the US occupation authority, didn’t bother containing his joy at seeing the Marines leave. "I can’t describe to you the happiness I feel right now," he said. "This is a victory for Islam."
Fallujah Rebels, Residents, Police Celebrate Victory over U.S. Marines by Dahr Jamail Fallujah, Iraq , May 10 - The US 1st Marine Division sent a small convoy into Fallujah today in order to meet with the mayor and show cooperation with the Iraqi Police (IP) and Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC).
But the supposed show of force was a pre-arranged exercise. Immediately following the Marines’ departure, the embattled city erupted into what could only be described as a huge victory celebration over the US military.Residents were joined by fully armed resistance fighters who intermingled freely with uniformed IP and ICDC personnel.
At roughly 11:00 this morning, several American Humvees and Stryker vehicles entered the downtown area of Fallujah, accompanied by pick-up trucks full of members of both the IP and ICDC, who traveled in front of, beside, and behind the military convoy. The small convoy slowly made its way inside the heavily blockaded Tribal Council compound.
A 1st Marine Division press release about the exercise says Marines "traveled into Fallujah today to exercise freedom of movement and meet with city officials."
Members of both the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Civil Defense Corps joined armed mujahideen in celebration, waving their guns in the air and flashing the two-fingered "Victory" sign.
Abdul Rahman, a captain in the ICDC, explained the Marines’ exercise as a negotiated concession. "There were negotiations between the people of Fallujah and the occupation forces," Captain Rahman said. "The plan is for the Americans to pull all of their troops out of the city after they get this one patrol."
After pausing to look at the military vehicles inside the compound, Rahman added, "We want them out of our country."
Nervous residents of the recently besieged city watched quietly from sidewalks as the vehicles sat for about 30 minutes inside the Tribal Council complex, behind concrete barriers some eight feet high. The scores of Iraqi Police and Iraqi Civil Defense Core members who had accompanied that patrol now guarded the building.
In the Marines’ press release, 1st Lieutenant Eric Knapp, the Public Affairs Officer for the 1st Marine Division, states, "Cooperation between Coalition and Iraqi Forces in Fallujah is symbolic of the solidarity between all who share a vision of a secure and prosperous Iraq."
But at least some members of those Iraqi forces saw the situation differently.
Just outside the compound walls, Alla Hamdalide, a member of the ICDC forces said his unit was required to protect the Marines. "We brought the Americans from the bridge into the city," he said. "They couldn’t even come in here alone. The victory for Fallujah remains."
Despite the extremely tense and somber atmosphere outside, Major General James Mattis met with the mayor of Fallujah inside the compound where they reportedly discussed plans to rebuild the city.
(Rebuild the city?? Oh, sh*t)
After only half an hour inside the compound, again with scores of IP and ICDC riding in pick-up trucks and surrounding the Marines’ vehicles, the patrol slowly made its way back out of the city. No gunfire was reported during the event.
Immediately after the patrol left the area, spontaneous celebrations erupted as crowds of residents gathered in the street and began chanting and waving banners. Members of both the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Civil Defense Corps joined in the celebration, waving their guns in the air and flashing the two-fingered "Victory" sign.
An elderly Fallujah resident riding in the back of a truck, waving a traditional Iraqi flag, yelled, "Today is the first day of the war against the Americans! This is a victory for us over the Americans!"
Resistance fighters, called mujahideen ("freedom fighters") by locals, mixed in with the crowd of unarmed civilians, police and Iraqi soldiers. Brandishing rocket propelled grenade launchers (RPGs), Kalashnikov assault rifles and hand grenades, they paraded on trucks as thousands of residents began to move up and down the main street in an impromptu victory parade.
US military officials have admitted that among the Iraqi forces making up the Fallujah Brigade, which they say will be relied upon to maintain security in the city, are an unknown number of guerillas who confronted US Marines just last month at the peak of fighting here. The new brigade is led in part by Ba’athist officers who served in the military under ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.
Ahmed Saadoun Jassin, a uniformed Iraqi Policeman hired and trained by the US occupation authority, didn’t bother containing his joy at seeing the Marines leave. "I can’t describe to you the happiness I feel right now," he said. "This is a victory for Islam."
When asked about cooperating with the Marines, Jassin explained, "This was the deal that was negotiated. They couldn’t stay in Fallujah for over one hour, which they didn’t."
Shop owners threw handfuls of candy at the passing crowds. Many of the people celebrating waved old Iraqi flags, while some held up copies of the Qur’an.
Music blared from mosques as vehicles carrying both armed mujahideen and celebrating residents of Fallujah made their way up and down the main street of the city. Members of the IP, ICDC and several of the resistance fighters were seen firing their guns into the air.
The 1st Marine Division made no mention of the agreed restrictions Iraqi police and soldiers said were placed on the Marines to ensure them safe travel in their press release.
"Fallujans reportedly waved to the Marines as they made their way in and out of the city... Freedom of movement in Fallujah, like that demonstrated by today’s visit, is a crucial component in the process of setting the conditions necessary to rebuild and revitalize the city," wrote Lt. Knapp. "This display of teamwork serves notice to those who violently oppose stability in Iraq; they are nothing more than unwanted barriers on the road to a truly free Iraq."
One resistance fighter riding on the roof of a truck while wielding an RPG stated, "They [the Marines] just made the people of the world laugh at them. But I think they will come back, because they don’t keep their word."
John, I respectfully disagree. You missed the audience. The audience was NOT the guys at the war college, nor even the American people. It was the Iraqis, good and bad.
LS, - you're both wrong, in that Bush was addressing the world, not just Americans or Iraqi's. B-Bob is right in the sense that this administration has missed completely ~that~ audience.
Bush was letting them know that they had to a) get their act together and get someone in charge; b) that we would keep killing baddies, and c) that after the June 30 handover of sovereignty, we would do as THEY bid.
Which everyone in the real world knows is political BS. We invaded Iraq for a middle eastern base of operations in our WOT, {quite rightly, in self defense}, -- and we will not give up our position there until ~something~ is resolved.
Bush pointed out that was critical, because after June 30 it is an independent government requesting us to stay and to look for WMDs! Moreover, a military audience such as the war college is MUCH different than the "troops" in the field. A military audience is SUPPOSED to be apolitical. I'm surprised Bush was EVER interrupted by applause at such a setting.
Polite applause, but nothing more, was appropriate.
The speech was a failure because once again the obvious truth of the Iraqi situation was smothered in politically correct platitudes.
We are there for the 'duration'. And NO one knows how long this middle east mess will last.
I'll bet we will be in Iraq for the next two administrations, irregardless of which party is in the White House.
I was in the audience at Carlisle (even got up front!).
The speech was well-received here. We were enthusastic about him coming here, and almost everyone is very supportive of the President.
I will say the clapping was a very surreal situation. We were even talking amongst ourselves beforehand about it, wondering what we should do. Why you ask?
We have many world and national leaders come here each week for addresses to the class. Whenever it is a military leader, we stand at attention when he arrives, but do not clap. We also rarely clap during a speech as part of our protocol. We do stand and clap at the end of the speeches. But what do you then do with the President? As our Commander-in-Chief, we see him as much as our military leader as we do our political leader. Should we just stand, or do we break protocol and clap? What about during his speech?
Regardless, the clapping at the beginning--and it was very loud and long--was a spontaneous response that broke with protocol. So did each of the four or five applause points during the speech. For outside folks looking in, especially those who are used to politiacl rallies, it would seem we were very subdued. For us, it was extreme in the other direction. I know that sounds a bit bizarre to all, but what can I say.
I do agree with you that the President could have thrown in a couple of live audience lines to really get the military crowd into it. We would have gone willingly. Anything dealing with the military or the War College would/did get a rousing response; we can cheer without hesitiation for anything about the school, sacrifices of our soldiers, history of warfare, etc. But anything political forces us to sit on our hands--even if we did not want to.
I think his speechwriters did not fully understand this strange military dichotomy. And I fully understand the audience was actually the entire US, our coalition, the Iraqis, the Arab street, the World, etc. I am just referring to about 3-4 minutes of non-political lines near the beginning that would have given us the opportunity to cheer much more wildly...which we all wanted to do.
And you are absolutely right about the history lessons he needs to tell the American people. I was in DC talking to the editors of one of the large news magazines two weeks ago, and they were saying how we should have already had all our work in Iraq wrapped up by now...that post-conflict operations should not take so long (over a year). I asked them how long they thought it should have taken. They did not know. So I asked how long has it taken over the past century. They did not know that either. I told them to they needed to start working their staf harder--have them do some historical research--and that I think they will find it always has taken more than four years, and often much longer. They were stunned. If they did not know, how do we expect the average American to understand. The administration must educate the public.
As for casualties, we are so far under what we thought we would experieince that it is amazing. Yet Americans believe we have taken many more casualties that expected. Again, people need to be educated. Since our schools do not teach this stuff, and our press is too bias and ignorant of history to do it, and President and his administration need to actively do what you suggest.
Having said all that, I still think it was a good speech, and fully support him. But, like you, think he needs to do better, not because he isn't right on target with what he says, but because the ignorance and bias of the press requires him to do their job as well.
One man's opinion anyway...
I beg to differ, the audience for this was the American people. President Bush just chose to deliver the address in front of a live audience at the War College.
I also do not think it "fell flat"
How are things coming along for our CFR ad buy in a few months??
You confirmed a thought I had as I was writing, that there might be a tradition at the War College that one does not respond with applause, regardless of agreement with the sentiments expressed. (I had zero doubt that the people of the War College did strongly support what was said.)
Thank you for making some effort with editors in Washington to try to push them into some historical research. I know that you and your colleagues are very informed on military history, because I know the kind of courses you take. But as you correctly note, and as I say also, the American press is dumb as a bag of hammers on the subject.
And thank you for your service.
Respectfully,
John / Billybob
I still seek more folks to join in the effort. If you're interested, please go to my website, and join up. Address is in my tagline. I only have about 22% of the 1,000 folks I was seeking as associates.
John / Billybob
I already did join up.
However, my point about pounding the history remains valid. Military officers know the subject. But the American press, never having served (mostly) and being poorly educated in history (almost all of them) DO need to be forced to consider that subject. And any Presidential speech CAN force the issue on them.
John / Billybob
What an odd thing to say.
Yes, I read your comments after I made my post. Unfortunately, I think your valid points on "pounding the history" are obscured by your opening shot concerning the lack of the applause. And while I agree that an emphasis on history will help clarify our mission in Iraq and elsewhere, I have absolutely no faith that the press has any interest in recieving a lesson in that subject. Again, my time spent in the military has provided an absolutely clear platform to judge the objectivity and agenda of the overwhelming majority of our press corps. Lack of education is not a problem. Lack of integrity and journalistic standards are what needs to change. The President can and should force the issue, but for most of the media, he may as well be speaking into a dead line. Time well tell if he is able to get the message out in other ways. Perhaps your article is a start.
Read down through my other comments.
Ah Hum. The mother of my future grandchildren is a lawyer, as is their father, so watch your mouth.
Of course they would both agree that far too many lawyers are scum, but far from all of them.
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.