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 -
I'm not sure where you get your information, but the majority of attendees to The Army War College are LTC(P) and COLs, of which a majority are slated for Brigade command or senior staff assignments. Only a few attendees may be slated for ROTC PMS assignments.
There are also major curricula out in Kansas.
Wishful thinking?
He factually went over things as a reminder and outlined some of his thoughts.
I was not bored and found it to be inspiring. Everything does not have to be up-beat all the time. A serious speech in wartime is comforting.
Our President has the cares of the world on his shoulders and has many things to deal with. He is doing a great job and I am thankful that he is the one who occupies the office at this time.
I thought it was a great speech. Sorry if he got to the point and did not dally around with quips. He had a message and stated it period.
There are times when the President doesn't say or do what I think he should, or what I think might most satisfy me and my expectations.
Still, the man is a cool drink of pure water compared to the brackish sludge poured out during the xlinton years, and the poison which Kerry and the Dems offer us today.
I'll give him all the room he needs to make the moves on the chessboard of history, regardless of what I myself would wish to see and hear at any given moment.
I love President Bush, fear greatly for his life, and pray that he will be kept safe from the enemy.
About his speech at the War College, I wasn't surprised at the lack of rousing cheers from those in the audience ... they are a sober lot, and the times are as grim as they are filled with hope.
There will be other occasions where it'll be more appropriate to raise the roof, and sway the fence-sitters.
The main point is that these things take time. They demand changes in tactics to deal with changing circumstances on the ground. And, the global stakes if we fail are comparable to the stakes after WW II.
Just try to imagine what the last 55 years of world history would have looked like, had we pulled out of Germany before the task was well completed. West Germany might have collapsed into chaos, and been taken over by East Germany, with Soviet help.
Even with the USSR gone, the world still has more than half its population living under murderous dictatorships. If we get out too early, as many leftists and a few rightists are arguing, our failure will vastly strengthen the hand of the dictators. And given today's weapons, THAT failure may be measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans assassinated here, in our own cities.
I think President Bush clearly sees this deadly possibility. I am concerned that he's not expressing that effectively, using history as the example -- and rubbing the press' noses in that history.
John
His audience was the Iraqi people, the Arab world, as well as the American people. Him giving the speech at the War College made it appear as though he was telling the military what the plans for Iraq were. I think he knew very well who the audience was.
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.
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.
Wishful thinking?
No Tex, I'm confident even Ray Charles can see what's happening.
You say that the majority of Iraqis are against us. What are you basing that on? I don't see 25 million Iraqis in the streets either shooting at us or even demonstrating against us. Have you? Other than in Falujia or Sadr, who in the hell is rebelling?
I don't think I'd say the President's speech fell flat. I'd say Bush`s speech at the War College lacked passion. But then again, many of the President's recent speeches have lacked a certain passion. He made his points and restated his goals. Nothing new on the policy front, except for the remark about tearing down Abu Ghraib prison. C+/B- range.
It's those who fall for the leftist propaganda who he was speaking to. They need reassuring, we who pay attention, (JUST LIKE THE MILITARY WAR COLLEGE) the speech meant little, we have heard it before, but it was the clarity that countered in that speech.
John Kerry is using the blame America first approach and some of the mushy middle is falling for it with the help of the mainstream media. President Bush directed his speech at them.
We are 5 months out from the elections and many hurdles in front of us, IMHO we are doing just fine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Democrats are making a huge mistake by playing the blame America first card with their hysterical demands that Rummy and many others resign at once. If the Bush Administration or any other administration was to adopt such a policy in the middle of a war, it would only embolden our enemies. Al Gore and his leftist minions should learn how to keep their pie hole shut
That is not what I said. Here let me help. Here's my quote
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.
JH is opining the public will bail over the spector of chronic body counts, with no light at the end of the tunnel visible. That is a real and present risk. Bush knows it. He is trying to address it, as best he can, which many of us wish were better, although some of us clearly disagree about what would be better, other than Bush suddenly acquiring Clinton's articulative skills.
How in the hell do you know that?
Excellent post
I'm a soldier with the U.S. Army serving in the 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Baghdad.
The news you are hearing stateside is awfully depressing and negative. The reality is we are accomplishing a tremendous amount here, and the Iraqi people are not only benefiting greatly, but are enthusiastically supportive.
My job is mostly to be the driver of my platoon's lead Humvee. I see the missions our Army is performing, and I interact closely with the Iraqi people. Because of this, I know how successful and important our work is.
This is the work of the U.S. military. Our progress is amazing. Many people who knew only repression and terror now have hope in their heart and prosperity in their grasp. Every day the Iraqi people stream into the streets to cheer and wave at us as we drive by. When I'm on a foot patrol, walking among a crowd, countless people thank us — repeatedly.
I'm not out of touch with the negative side of things. In fact, I think my unit has it harder than many other Army units in this whole operation. That said, despite some attacks, the overall picture is one of extreme success and much thanks.
The various terrorist enemies we are facing in Iraq are really aiming at you back in the United States. This is a test of will for our country. We soldiers of yours are doing great and scoring victories in confronting the evil terrorists.
The reality is one of an ever-increasing defeat of the enemies we face. Our enemies are therefore more desperate. They are striking out more viciously and indiscriminately. I realize this is causing Americans stress, and I assure you it causes us stress, too.
Yes, there are terrorists who wish to strike these things down, but this is a test of will we must win. We can do this, as long as Americans at home keep faith with the soldiers in this war. We are Americans, after all. We can and must win this test. That is all it is.
Roche serves with the U.S. Army's 16th Combat Engineer Battalion in Iraq and is an adjunct fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think-tank.
Apparently this soldier doesn't seem to understand that it's all going to crap around him. I guess he doesn't have the insights that some of our internet generals do.
He doesn't... he's just talking out of his arse as usual
Oh come on Tex. That doesn't even rate a response.
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.