Name the Enemy!

"U.S. soldiers are trained only to defend America and her allies against foreign threats and aggression, and to preserve our freedom."

In tonight's State of the Union address, the President should use his time to identify and name the only rational objective for the war in Iraq, and the wider War on Terror: to defend the U.S. against any foreign element that would remove or restrict U.S. citizens and allies of their unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our Constitution does not authorize the President or Congress to fight a war for any other reason.

It is time for Mr. Bush to stop trying to sell this war as an attempt to bring democracy to the middle east. Or to remove an evil dictator. Such notions are foolish and prone to defeat, both at home and in Iraq. Suggesting that our soldiers should serve such an end is ludicrous. U.S. soldiers are trained only to defend America and her allies against foreign threats and aggression, and to preserve our freedom. Tonight might be the last opportunity to provide the American public with a clear definition of the objectives of both fronts.

America invaded Iraq because the President and his administration thought that Saddam Hussein was capable of developing "weapons of mass destruction" if, in fact he did not already have them. The President was not alone. John Kerry agreed. Bill and Hillary Clinton agreed. As did many others. Thus congress gave the President authority to attack Iraq.

Given the strong evidence that Iraq did in fact have the technology and the capability to create biological and / or nuclear-lite weaponry, Our government had a moral, and Constitutional obligation to let our troops do their job.

However, there should have been more. The invasion of Iraq should have been billed as the first step in a greater campaign to rid the world of states that sponsor and commit terrorism against the U.S. Such a decree would have legitimized our continued efforts in Iraq despite the lack of proof of WMDs (which, new evidence suggests, may have been diverted to Syria). Additionally, our troops should have been provided adequate forces and protection to complete this job! With the proper troop levels, tools and direction, the U.S. could have achieved all of its objectives and left Iraq much sooner.

Now, we sit on our hands and watch as Iran threatens the free world with a nuclear jihad, and Syria joins them in supporting the insurgency in Iraq with conventional weaponry-- killing our soldiers daily!!

Now we watch our troops fight valiantly, but against a rising tide of violence against them. We watch our leaders try to sell this war as something it is not.

We watch as America slowly loses her footing as the moral leader and superpower in the world.

Mr. President, I urge you, pledge to:

- Complete the job in Iraq: Kill the insurgents and those who harbor them; Install- yes, INSTALL a US friendly government-- The Iraqi's DO NOT have the right to vote for a new anti-U.S. dictator.

- Name the enemy: Terrorism and states that sponsor it!

- Destroy Iran's capability to develop a nuclear arsenal that would be used to destroy Israel, and soon enough, America.

- Send out a message to Syria, and all who would threaten the U.S- stop sponsoring terror now, or pay the price with your destruction.

You owe that to each and every man, woman and child in this country, Mr. President.

Consideration

There are plenty of more thoughtful analyses of the President's speech last night than mine here, here, and here. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they all make fair and good points.

Apparently, 20,000 troops is not "a LOT". While John McCain is calling for 35 ,000, Larry Elder says we need 100,000! They both support the President's new plan. McCain claims that the President's 21,500 "meet his criteria" (of 35,000? Huh?) while Larry Elder would have preferred a much larger expansion.

I would tend to agree. However, I think the President is on the right track, finally, and I hope the troop level increase will provide the US with enough manpower to start to turn Iraq around.

Welcome to the Game, Mr. President

"Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and will prevail"

Change the course! That is how the president framed his new plan to stabilize Iraq and bring Democracy to the once fertile crescent. He introduced “bold” new initiatives, like vastly expanding the U.S. presence in Iraq, and guarantying an oil sharing plan that would not favor any region. He also described a world wherein Iraq fell to the insurgents and Al Qaeda was left to flourish unchecked. And, perhaps most importantly, he accepted responsibility for America’s failure to secure Iraq to date.

One question for the A.L.F. claiming to be George W. Bush this evening: Who are you and what have you done with our President? And, why couldn’t you deliver this speech repeatedly over the last 4 years?

Overall, the speech tonight was strong message that spelled out exactly what is at stake for the U.S. in Iraq, what American’s should expect to accomplish the mission and how it will be accomplished. Remember The Powell Doctrine?

First, the President admitted that he expected the destruction of the Hussein Regime to bring Iraqis together. Why he thought that I will never know. Wishful thinking? Maybe. But, while I supported the move to invade Iraq, it seemed to me that there was plenty of evidence that the invasion of Baghdad would unleash a bloodbath if not managed correctly.

Still, a President who rarely accepts responsibility acknowledged that the blame rested squarely on him. Perhaps if he had said that prior to the invasion, all the “Darth Cheney” and “Lord Rumsfeld” rumors would never have surfaced. It’s a crucial step for this President.

However, the most powerful statement the President made this evening was to reiterate that the loss of Iraq is unacceptable. Both sides of the isle need to hear this point, again and again. All of America needs to understand that the fall of Iraq would endanger our security for a generation. The Honorable Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid should think very carefully before they force the U.S. to surrender.

Mr. Bush’s description of an Iraq in the grips of Al Qaeda and as a safe haven for Islamist terrorists was powerful and accurate. He should have abandoned the WMD position long ago (even if it is proving to be true) and focused on the strategic importance of such an Iraq, bordering Iran and Syria. I appreciated his understanding of why the insurgents are fighting so fiercely- to them, Democracy equals Death. Equally important, he stressed that the violence is being caused by a small minority who are holding the vast majority of peace loving Iraqis (Shiite and Sunni) hostage.

As for the practical- well, I guess those Generals on the ground are finally asking for more troops, because Mr. Bush is allocating 20,000 more!! Sorry to sound so glib, but that’s a LOT! If in fact the Generals were holding back when they needed that many new troops, they should be court marshaled. However, since the President has accepted responsibility, I can overlook that gross dereliction of duty.

Seriously- everyone knew the troop levels were too low over 3 years ago. While the increase is welcome (my best wishes and sincere thanks go with them), it’s long overdue. The President needs to explain why he waited so long to do this. He should also immediately bring Colin Powell and John McCain on as his dedicated advisors in Iraq.

The expansion of U.S. forces will enable the troops to secure all of Iraq in the coming year, according to the President. Ok. That sounds good. U.S. troops will team with Iraqi troops to go door to door throughout neighborhoods and hunt down insurgent safe havens. That’s a good idea. Why haven’t we done it until now? Well, according to the President, sectarian interference has prevented our troops and Iraqi police from entering the most important neighborhoods, where sympathetic citizens hide and harbor the insurgents. Well, no more! PM Maliki has just last week told all of Iraq that he will not tolerate any sectarian interference to these sweeps! Thanks for that, Mr. Maliki. I’m glad you finally got around to that. Such a move is purely symbolic. As the President noted, Al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They will hardly listen to the elected PM.

Perhaps it is also wishful thinking to hope that a new oil sharing plan will quell fears of a bloodbath to control oil revenues after the U.S. leaves. I hope there is a plan to prepare the Iraqi army for this eventuality. It is certain to be brutal and could threaten any new democracy. Maybe he is saving that speech for 2010.

However, President Bush recognized the immediate danger and warned us that we will see more blood, more death and more destruction throughout the coming year. But he also described a world with a stable, secure and DEMOCRATIC Iraq! He suggested that Iraq would be stabilized by November (2007, I presume), that Saudi Arabia would rally to the new Democracy, and the troops could start coming home.

There is much more to discuss, and I will update this post over the next few days. I have not read the transcript yet- so far this post is based solely on the notes I scribbled during the speech. My overall reaction is that it was a powerful speech, and America would be a much stronger country if it had been delivered in March, 2003, instead of January 2007. While I am optimistic that we can accomplish our objectives in Iraq, I fear the U.S. has suffered through a season of trials and tribulations unnecessarily.

In short:

President Bush accepts responsibility, finally.

Defeat in Iraq equals a victory for Al Qaeda and Islamist fascism.

More troops will help root out the insurgents and keep them out.

There will be much more bloodshed in the months to come.

By November, a new era of democracy and security in Iraq will portend a homecoming for our brave and tireless soldiers.

Godspeed Mr. President. I hope it’s not too late.