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.

Students at the war colleges aren't only general officers and military historians

Most aren't generals, but most want to be generals, or at least Colonels/Captains.

The vast majority are officers returning from overseas assignments who are being reassigned to teach ROTC. They are being given basic lesson plans and educational material to present to college ROTC students. They are being taught how to grade papers and use the teacher's edition of text books.

Where did you get that notion? I never attended a War College, but I did do Squadron Officers School, which is the first step of the Air Forces Proffessional Military Education ladder. It's followed by the Air Command and Staff and Air War College. Several of my compatriots were doing AWC by correspondence, and I assure you they didn't study lesson plans, nor did they discuss the best ways to produce new butter bars at their seminars.

Actually, I think you may be thinking of Command and General Staff College perhaps. I did study lesson plans there. And guys left there and within a couple of years were teaching at ROTC units across the country. I do not think CGSC would claim that as their top mission, but nevertheless I think that is one thing they do. The Army War College is different though. One comes here AFTER having completed his or her 05 command, including ROTC Professors.

For example some of what we concentrated on this year included National Strategic Policy-Making (i.e how Condi Rice earns her pay); the instruments of National Power (we call them the DIME...Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic elements of National Strategy), and how they can be used together to achieve our National Strategic objectives; Interagency operations (DoD, State, CIA, FBI, etc.); Joint and Coalition Warfare; strategic and operational war plans and execution; and of course some military history and military theory. Not a full list, but we do not study any lesson plans or prepare for teaching classes aimed at anyone lower than 05 or 06. Some of us will leave to command Brigades, while most of the rest will go to a higher level staff job, either in the Pentagon on the Army or Joint Staff, or to one of the Component Commands (such as CENTCOM).

The Air Force has a special short course run by Air University at Maxwell, which is also the physical location for the Air Command and Staff and Air War College, for prospective AFROTC instructors. It's called the AF Reserve Officer Training Corps Academic Instructor Course. It is not part of either ACS or AWC. I couldn't find what sort of school the Army sends it's prospective ROTC instructors and PMS( Professors of Military Science, the head of the ROTC detachment at a particular school). However I did find that they are trying to hire retired active duty or current reserve/guard officers to fill out the staffs of ROTC units. From this I take it that the Army is having a hard time finding enough officers to fill operational and other staff slots and would like to not lose them to ROTC for 2-4 years, at least at the present time.

I'd say the President got a very warm welcome indeed. I just watched the speech on the CSPAN site (I was at work down the in "The Pit", where we can't have TV, Radio, Cell Phones, handy talkies or even AM/FM recievers, but we can have CD (and presumably DVD) players as long as they had no writable non volitile memory) When he first arrived, and when he remounted the dias for a final wave after doing the greet and shake bit, the place exploded, especially there at the last.

I agree that he could and should have layed on the history a bit more, but I still think he made the points he wanted to make.

I usually like the stuff written by John Armor (Congressman Billybob). But there is just something about this piece on Bush. Something about it. It just didn't "do it" for me. I can't put my finger on it. It's kinda like it was not written for "me".

It just didn't have the "oomph!". That "je nes se qua". The "gravitas" I'd expect. I just can't seem to find the right words to describe it. Can anyone help me out?

I'm not sure this audience is the type that will interrupt with applause repeatedly, so that may not be the best measure of success. Still....

That was a direct hit. Great, great point. It's an old military axiom that no plan survives the first contact with the enemy, and the idea that we could "plan" the occupation of a country of 26 million people on the immediate heels of a war of indeterminate duration is laughable. What matters is our ability to adapt, persevere, and grind out a victory.

I believe you're confusing the war college experience with what is the course structure at the command and staff schools of the various services. The was colleges as well as the Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the national War College at Ft. Leslie J. McNair are on the Ph.D. level. These attendees go on to JCS work, command assignments at the divison, wing and battle group level of field forces and training commands and Pentagon support functions at the higher levels. These graduates do not go on the assigments at ROTC or others that are on the downhill side of the retirement gate.

If the only audience had been the war college, then your points are well made. But the audience wasn't really them, it was the American people.

As simple as the information you discussed seems to us, it is unfortunately reality, and reality is something the current American citizenry hasn't yet adapted to dealing with, especially, dare I say this, many women voters and young people steeped in kumbaya idealism from liberal brainwashing in the schools.

President Bush is the CIC and the political leader right now, and his judgment on what the American people can absorb may not always be right, but he is probably more often right than we are about this.

Right now, my view is that undermining a leader in time of war or a parent in midst of disciplining a child is a bad idea. It may sell newspapers and newsletters and increase TV ratings, but it is essentially counterproductive--it makes the problem you are facing worse, imo.

I have seen nothing like this in all my life! Ever! It is as though we are living in the Weimer Republic.

They are letting the media set the agenda.

The media is Fouled Up Beyond All Recall. I agree with you that we've seen nothing like this - their bias is stunning.

I don't agree that we are letting them set the agenda. This is no more true than to say we let Clinton be a scumbag. Their agenda is out of our hands. They are thoroughly infected with the Liberal Disease.

Anything that W. says can and will be held against him, unless ignored.

This can get depressing after a while, even for a great leader. Churchill was called to lead Great Britain in their hour of greatest need, with broad public and press support. Had he had what passes for our main stream media for press, I doubt even he would have found the voice to speak as well as he did for the need to defend liberty at all costs.

This is probably more pressing on a extrovert, such as Bush. Those driven more by concept, such as perhaps Reagan and Churchill, are perhaps better prepared to weather bitter opposition from the press. Bush, while just as smart, has a temperment that thrives on people.

Fortunately, he also thrives on prayer. I urge my fellow Freepers who are so inclined to pray for him. I would pray for him myself, but for that I am a God Damned Atheist.

It is not looking good in Iraq. The place is a freaking mess.

In fact, not all major cities in the US have a higher crime rate than Iraq!
Context, people, context!!
Just remember, journalism isn't there to tell you what's going on, and what's going to happen. Journalism exists to cure boredom. From the POV of the journalist, Iraq is a wonderful source of bad news, nothing more.
If you really wanted to see Iraq in perspective, look at Afghanistan. There are casualties happening there - e.g., Pat Tilman - but Afghanistan is on journalism's back burner because there is more excitement in Iraq. But because our military operations in Afghanistan began a year before those in Iraq, the experience in Afghanistan is a salient bit of data for figuring what to expect in Iraq. Allowing both for significant local differences on the one hand, and for the application of lessons learned in one place being applied to the other - by Americans and by Al Qaeda.
A new government is being established in Iraq; a year or so ago a new government was established in Afghanistan. American forces are still in Afghanistan, and a year from now American forces will still be needed and presumably will still be present in Iraq.
Of course we will have an election in the meantime, and at present the polls are not showing a clear winner. IMHO that reflects journalism's best efforts to levitate the Kerry candidacy - and by November events such as continued improvement in the economy and progress in Iraq toward the situation now existing in Afghanistan will let the air out of that baloon.
Kerry has been on all sides of every issue, and I expect the campaign to force him to clarify his position - and lose support to Nader while Bush's support only solidifies. You can't beat somebody with nobody, and you can't beat an effective sitting president with a hollow 3-term senator who has 75,000 miles on his odometer but is otherwise indistinguishable from a typical Ivy League June grad.

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.