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 -
My hot button is the need for history. The more Bush talked about that, the more he'd force the press to cover that aspect. And the more the press had to cover Japan and Germany, the less effective the press bias against this war would become.
John / Billybob
Sorry my last post had a typo. Your letter is GOOD not goof!
J.
Thank you. If Bush wanted cheerleaders and handshakes, he would have picked a different setting. The War College location shows Bush is serious about planning and strategy. I think billybob misread this one.
I don't think Bush made the claim that it would be "seminal". It is just the first step in the 5-point plan. Yes, it had nothing new. But why would that be a surprise? I would venture that to 90% of those that watching it that it was new since they are not news junkies like many of us. Bush has bet his election on his faith that the Iraqis are capable of self-government. That is a leap of faith that few politicians would ever take. So he has "stayed the course" when many that were "behind him all the way" have jumped off the train. We haven’t seen that trait in a politician in a long time. I just wonder if we ever will again.
If you are referring to Spain pulling out of the can of worms known as Iraq, it was a joke to begin with. It was only token appeasement Tex. For cripes sakes, they only had about 1500 troops in Iraq. Most high schools have more students than that.
They put their entire portion of their token coalition on two or three aircraft and were audios amigo! You need to face up Tex. It is not looking good in Iraq. The place is a freaking mess.
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?
I happen to agree with you that Bush's media strategy seems to be lacking. I do not know how to get around it as no matter what he tries he will have a problem. If he makes a series of speeches demanding coverage then they will just be branded as campaign speeches.
I am in my 50's and have been watching American politics since childhood (I come from a very political family and environment) and I have seen nothing like this in all my life! Ever! It is as though we are living in the Weimer Republic. Somehow he has to make the Media coverage itself and issue. I see no other way. He does not need to do it directly but he needs have it come out of the mouth of GOP leadership on the Hill, at the Cabinet level and influential Republicans like Guliani and Arnold out in CA.
A case and point would be Falluja and Narif. This has been blown way out of proportion - a few thousand fighters in a population of 23 million, and they have been devastated. It is just like Tet (we kill maybe 70,000 during Tet, BTW,) You would think that the American public in general and the GOP in particular would see through this. As a nation we should no better. No one outside of the hard left is truly proud of the Vietnam "legacy." On the other side of it and at 35 years distance the "summer of love," as it were, looks rather dishonorable and shabbily sophomoric. Perhaps it is time to revisit the results of that time - millions died over there as a result of our lack of honor (I am not talking about the troops.)
Somewhere, somehow, this "new tone" business must cease.
I am beginning to wonder if there is not some sort of religious motive behind Bush;s media approach, that somehow the American people must look the facts straight in the eye and decide for themselves, that it is some sort of call to moral self discipline and self judgment. I know that sounds loony but it is hard for me to otherwise understand why the administration has been so seemingly weak in their response to the media. They are letting the media set the agenda. If there is so truth to my notion all I can say - and as I have said elsewhere on FR - is that I for my part am somewhat less pious.
Has Bush's faith in the American people lead him to underestimate the power of the media. To put it another way: Are we up to the faith he has in us?
I sure hope we are.
That tells me nothing. I heard a great eulogy last week and you know, it didn't get interrupted by applause once. Bush set out to give a speech that was as detailed as he could get and to lay the specific goals of the US and Iraq over the next nine months. This was a speech to inform, not to generate applause lines.
I came away from that speech thinking that our President knows what he's doing and I have confidence in him seeing this through.
You want applause? Go to a pep rally.
I do not understand. Do you disagree with me or the article?
Yeah that is why I am saying that this country is on the verge of making them look heroic.
Amen Brother. Bush staked his political fortunes on doing what he thought was right, not what politically safe or expedient. When's the last time we saw a politician do anything like that?
The audience was dam near everyone who heard it...
Sorry bayourod, you are the one who is not informed on this subject:
War colleges are the top finishing schools for military minds, and the Army's comprises a variety of units, including the Advanced Strategic Art Program and the Strategic Studies Institute, which foster military research when they're not awarding degrees.
The Army handpicks most of the approximately 340 students who attend each year, but there are always some from the other armed services, too—including, usually, one from the Coast Guard. The student body also includes civilians from the Pentagon, State Department, and National Security Agency, along with about 40 senior officers from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, and New Zealand.
Since it was founded in 1901, the Army War College has had some notable graduates, such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who graduated first in his class as a captain in 1928; Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf; and Gen. Tommy Franks.
Parenthetically it was at the War College that Eisenhower became a standout officer slated for high command.
Thanks for posting the piece on FR.
I do not understand. Do you disagree with me or the article?>>
No sorry I was actually directing it towards another poster and must have clicked on you instead.
Then I agree with you. I was confused for a second.
Reagan was the only other in my lifetime.
to be honest, Bush could get more political mileage by going on Letterman.
First mention I've heard of it falling flat. And I didn't think it did either.
They put their entire portion of their token coalition on two or three aircraft and were audios amigo! You need to face up Tex. It is not looking good in Iraq. The place is a freaking mess.
Yeah that is why I am saying that this country is on the verge of making them look heroic.
I disagree. It's gone beyond this heroic thing. The focus and direction of this whole thing has become blurred. The the majority of people in Iraq were clearly not behind us. And most of them cannot even be trusted by us, let alone fight for, and lay their own lives down for what we believe is right and just.
It's going southbound in a big way, IMO.
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.