I was in the audience at Carlisle (even got up front!).
The speech was well-received here. We were enthusastic about him coming here, and almost everyone is very supportive of the President.
I will say the clapping was a very surreal situation. We were even talking amongst ourselves beforehand about it, wondering what we should do. Why you ask?
We have many world and national leaders come here each week for addresses to the class. Whenever it is a military leader, we stand at attention when he arrives, but do not clap. We also rarely clap during a speech as part of our protocol. We do stand and clap at the end of the speeches. But what do you then do with the President? As our Commander-in-Chief, we see him as much as our military leader as we do our political leader. Should we just stand, or do we break protocol and clap? What about during his speech?
Regardless, the clapping at the beginning--and it was very loud and long--was a spontaneous response that broke with protocol. So did each of the four or five applause points during the speech. For outside folks looking in, especially those who are used to politiacl rallies, it would seem we were very subdued. For us, it was extreme in the other direction. I know that sounds a bit bizarre to all, but what can I say.
I do agree with you that the President could have thrown in a couple of live audience lines to really get the military crowd into it. We would have gone willingly. Anything dealing with the military or the War College would/did get a rousing response; we can cheer without hesitiation for anything about the school, sacrifices of our soldiers, history of warfare, etc. But anything political forces us to sit on our hands--even if we did not want to.
I think his speechwriters did not fully understand this strange military dichotomy. And I fully understand the audience was actually the entire US, our coalition, the Iraqis, the Arab street, the World, etc. I am just referring to about 3-4 minutes of non-political lines near the beginning that would have given us the opportunity to cheer much more wildly...which we all wanted to do.
And you are absolutely right about the history lessons he needs to tell the American people. I was in DC talking to the editors of one of the large news magazines two weeks ago, and they were saying how we should have already had all our work in Iraq wrapped up by now...that post-conflict operations should not take so long (over a year). I asked them how long they thought it should have taken. They did not know. So I asked how long has it taken over the past century. They did not know that either. I told them to they needed to start working their staf harder--have them do some historical research--and that I think they will find it always has taken more than four years, and often much longer. They were stunned. If they did not know, how do we expect the average American to understand. The administration must educate the public.
As for casualties, we are so far under what we thought we would experieince that it is amazing. Yet Americans believe we have taken many more casualties that expected. Again, people need to be educated. Since our schools do not teach this stuff, and our press is too bias and ignorant of history to do it, and President and his administration need to actively do what you suggest.
Having said all that, I still think it was a good speech, and fully support him. But, like you, think he needs to do better, not because he isn't right on target with what he says, but because the ignorance and bias of the press requires him to do their job as well.
One man's opinion anyway...
You confirmed a thought I had as I was writing, that there might be a tradition at the War College that one does not respond with applause, regardless of agreement with the sentiments expressed. (I had zero doubt that the people of the War College did strongly support what was said.)
Thank you for making some effort with editors in Washington to try to push them into some historical research. I know that you and your colleagues are very informed on military history, because I know the kind of courses you take. But as you correctly note, and as I say also, the American press is dumb as a bag of hammers on the subject.
And thank you for your service.
Respectfully,
John / Billybob
Thanks for your insightful comments.