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.

I don't think it fell flat either. And he did know his audience, because he wasn't just speaking to Americans...he was speaking to the world, and particularly the Iraqi people.

Sorry, John, but this is not a helpful column. I think you are mistaken.

You clearly worked hard on this piece, and it has real meat, and for that I salute you. You are a bit vague however, as to what Bush should have said, that it was prudent for him to say, to please the crowd. What should he have prudently said, that he did not say, and what did he say that he imprudently should not have said. Lawyers want particulars. Generalities are for the madding crowd.

I disagree. Although I think its importatant to point out the flaws in this speech, since it is part of a series. The president IMO didnt need to spell out new things immediately, it was a far more important speech in the fact that he spelled out the future in Iraq in his own words and not let the press or the talking heads define it for him. Also I think Bush would have been more upbeat in it if it wasnt for his bike accident, that probably more than anything distracted both him and the audience.

It was a workmanlike speech.

It's too early to start revving up the base and going after the undecideds.

People can only keep a high emotional pitch for a limited time, and the time to start serious speechifying will be after the Olympics.

The "helpful" litmus test, is not the right one, IMO. The right test is the the "truth" or "thought provoking" test. This forum would die, if we could not honestly express where we found Bush wanting, in good faith. But I have my own questions, which I posted.

Well-written, Congressman, but I don't necessarily agree. I think the President did a good job delivering a speech accessible to both his War College crowd and his broader audience. He very much needed to appeal to Mr. and Mrs. Joe America that night, and I think he pulled it off without shortchanging the live audience.

Bush needs a lot of prep, or a lot of raw emotion, to ramp up the delivery. He is not naturally an effective speaker. But then we all already knew that. When he does get into the zone, we are all delighted.

"The first rule of public speaking is: Know your audience. "

The first rule of journalism is: don't write about something you know nothing about.

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

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.

I agonized over whether to use the phrase "fell flat." I'm inclined to agree with Q that the speech was "workmanlike." But it could and should have been far better.

And I stick by my conclusion that a heavy dose of history was entirely appropriate before the War College community, and to force the press -- some of it, anyway -- to DO THEIR D*MNED HOMEWORK.

John / Billybob

Only hardcore Bushbots do not recognize the truth that he has lost his way.

Nope. Bush hasn't "lost his way". He is still focused on the goals he set after the 2002 State of the Union speech. He has never waiverd from those goals. He has done exactly what he said he would do. The ones that have "lost their way" are those on the "conservative" side that have lost their guts and are running for cover. The American people are starting to make Spaniards look heroic.

Every general officer in all branches of the US military takes courses at the War College.

I don't want to pick nits, but this statement is misleading and is not really correct. The War College which is in Pennsylvania is the Army's War College. It is attended primarily, but not exclusively, by senior Army officers. The Air Force has a War College too, and it is in Alabama, attended primarily by senior Air Force officers. The Navy also has one, which, if I recall correctly, is in Rhode Island, attended primarily by Navy officers. Then there is the National War College in Washington DC, which all services utilize, and is generally considered to be the gold standard of senior service schools. There is yet another senior service school, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, but it is another story altogether.

While it is well nigh impossible to be selected for flag rank without having attended one of the senior service schools, it is not at all accurate to state that all flag officers have attended the Army's War College.

For what it's worth.

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.