I agree that better historical context would be better.
In fact, I'd make a broader critique. Bush needs to give more examples, context, and justification period. So many times, he simply makes a statement. Instead he needs statement, then example/anecdote/justification, re-statement... and Reaganesque examples would help.
The speech did its job - to lay out the plan. but it is also correct to give context as to *why* plans are what they are, why they change and what *wont* change as we succeed in Iraq and *why* this shows we are actually on track to success in Iraq...
(he got into this a bit with the 'quick victory meant saddam's thugs melted into the civilian population).
He needs to justify *why* we are at war.
He needs to justify *why* we can claim we are winning it.
(point out not just hospitals opened, but how much has been done wrt security, the transitional law, etc.)
He needs to justify *why* we can be confident Iraq will be democratic (he was good here, he mentioned the elections of local councils).
Bush needs far more factoids in his speeches. The press is NOT mentioning these things to the people. How many people in the US even know that local elections have been held in Iraq already? Doesnt that simple fact deflate the whining defeatists who claim democracy cant work in Iraq?
Look, this first speech was the executive summary with 5 more to follow. The next 5 will deal with each part of the 5-point plan in more detail.