Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Bush’s War College Speech Fell Flat -- Know Your Audience, Speak to Them
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 May, 2004 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

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 -


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: North Carolina; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraqgermany; japan; northcarolina; occupatiion; oldnorthstate; presidentbush; warcollege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281 next last
To: Torie
Kerry is not advocating cutting and running. He is suggesting that the mission was ill advised in the first instance and now we are stuck.

Which is why he voted for it ...

81 posted on 05/27/2004 9:31:15 PM PDT by PMCarey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Torie
No, Kerry's real position is cut and run. Kerry says we sray and get the job done. However, he ALSO says, let the UN run things. That means the French, with their veto, run things. And that means cut and run.

The first time I crossed swords with Kerry in a college debate in 1963, his goal was to score rhetorical points. He had neither the interest nor the capacity to see where his position would inevitably wind up. Other than more money and more wrinkles, he's the same failed guy.

John

82 posted on 05/27/2004 9:31:32 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
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.

It is amazing how little it takes for this country to fold like a cheap suit.

83 posted on 05/27/2004 9:32:22 PM PDT by Texasforever (When Kerry was asked what kind of tree he would like to be he answered…. Al Gore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Oh come on Tex. That doesn't even rate a response.

So as usual you are just talking out of your ass.

84 posted on 05/27/2004 9:33:45 PM PDT by Texasforever (When Kerry was asked what kind of tree he would like to be he answered…. Al Gore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson

My sense of it is that the majority of Iraqis wish the US were gone, but are terrified of the consequences if we in fact were. In an nutshell, the majority are ambivalent. Wasn't it the Brits were observed, that the problem of the GI's emcamped in Britain during WWII was that they were oversexed, and over here? Granted, that was just jive, but still.


85 posted on 05/27/2004 9:34:09 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf

My brother has been to Iraq 6 times in the past year and I communicate with him daily, and you simply dont know WTF you are talking about AS USUAL


86 posted on 05/27/2004 9:35:43 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Our Wounded Soldiers at Walter Reed Have Yet to be Visited by John Kerry. What's he Afraid of?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: oceanview

True. What do you think are the chances of that happening? The First Lady was on Jay Leno a week or so ago and she did a superb job.


87 posted on 05/27/2004 9:35:55 PM PDT by no dems (Does the Bush/Cheney camp monitor the Freep website?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
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.

That was not the purpose of the speech. The speech was to address compaints from those inside the beltway that he did not have a plan to get us out of Iraq. He laid one out in the speech in clear English.

As for what it takes to win a war and speaking to the American people, that will come in subsequent talks, remember this is a first in a series.

heck, even the alphabet press knew this.

88 posted on 05/27/2004 9:36:02 PM PDT by gilliam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
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.

That was not the purpose of the speech. The speech was to address compaints from those inside the beltway that he did not have a plan to get us out of Iraq. He laid one out in the speech in clear English.

As for what it takes to win a war and speaking to the American people, that will come in subsequent talks, remember this is a first in a series.

heck, even the alphabet press knew this.

89 posted on 05/27/2004 9:36:03 PM PDT by gilliam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I don't think it's a done deal. FR isn't representative of this country...thank God. The press isn't representative of the nation either.

The soldier who wrote that e-mail is.

90 posted on 05/27/2004 9:36:21 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
As a graduate of War College, let me tell you something: it is not as noble as you say. 80% of the curriculum is cliche and inane.

To have a leader like President Bush speak to them was the highlight of the academic year.

91 posted on 05/27/2004 9:36:29 PM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever

OK, OK, OK Tex, the Iraqi people are totally behind us, we can trust them, and they are more than willing to lay down their *own* lives for what we believe is right and just. Go get um Tex!


92 posted on 05/27/2004 9:37:02 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
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.

Well, you can start by looking at the progeny of Irving Kristol and the gang at the Weekly Standard. They could barely contain themselves in their micro-managing of the war from the beginning. They'd jump ship in a minute if it kept their ideology afloat.

And all the while American blood and treasure would be wasted in a heartbeat. "Either we should pull out or redouble our efforts." I wish these guys would make up their minds.

I trust Bush and Rumsfeld far more than I do our "so called" friends on the right.

And I'm a fricken' libertarian!

93 posted on 05/27/2004 9:38:36 PM PDT by nunya bidness (Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
OK, OK, OK Tex, the Iraqi people are totally behind us, we can trust them, and they are more than willing to lay down their *own* lives for what we believe is right and just. Go get um Tex!

How many Iraqi police have been blown to smithereens?

94 posted on 05/27/2004 9:38:57 PM PDT by Texasforever (When Kerry was asked what kind of tree he would like to be he answered…. Al Gore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I agree to a point; I'm not sure the average Iraqi is that ambivalent. There is a lot of information out there that would suggest otherwise; if you look for it.

There have been some excellent first person accounts right here on FR that say otherwise...and they're lucky if they get ten posts. Why?

95 posted on 05/27/2004 9:39:49 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: nunya bidness
I trust Bush and Rumsfeld far more than I do our "so called" friends on the right.

Yup.

96 posted on 05/27/2004 9:40:09 PM PDT by Texasforever (When Kerry was asked what kind of tree he would like to be he answered…. Al Gore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Your posits make sense...which is why the MSM would never behave that way...sad to say.


97 posted on 05/27/2004 9:40:32 PM PDT by Keith (IT'S ABOUT THE JUDGES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
"OK, OK, OK Tex, the Iraqi people are totally behind us, we can trust them, and they are more than willing to lay down their *own* lives for what we believe is right and just. Go get um Tex!"

You failed at much more than "Anger Management", How about "Logic 101" and "Preventative Cranial Rectumitus"

98 posted on 05/27/2004 9:41:08 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Our Wounded Soldiers at Walter Reed Have Yet to be Visited by John Kerry. What's he Afraid of?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
How many Iraqi police have been blown to smithereens?

A bunch. Thanks for proving my point.

99 posted on 05/27/2004 9:41:22 PM PDT by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever

Rumsfeld, during his visit to Baghdad last week, stated that over 350 Iraqi policemen and military personnel have died in service to freedom.


100 posted on 05/27/2004 9:41:30 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 281 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson