The Problem of Iraq, Part I – Execution of Policy
Last night’s speech proved yet again that President Bush has his intellectual, conceptual and moral house firmly in order. In each of four sections of his brief address, he got the principles entirely right, and to our great relief, buried the cold carcass of the stillborn Iraq Study Group Report. Unfortunately, the problem was never the President’s understanding, but the workability of the policies he puts in place.
The best parts of the speech:
Last night’s speech proved yet again that President Bush has his intellectual, conceptual and moral house firmly in order. In each of four sections of his brief address, he got the principles entirely right, and to our great relief, buried the cold carcass of the stillborn Iraq Study Group Report. Unfortunately, the problem was never the President’s understanding, but the workability of the policies he puts in place.
The best parts of the speech:
The cause of the current violence: “Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause … They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam … in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked.”
America’s chief political weakness: “Our enemies will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering.”
The obligations of the Iraqi government: “To take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces … pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis … spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects … hold provincial elections later this year … reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.”
Iran and Syria: “Stabilizing … begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces … interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria … seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
The public acknowledgment that Iran and Syrian are waging a hot war against Americans and Iraqis, and the idea that the U.S. will take action to stop it were welcome. They are the necessary rhetorical and policy opposites of the Baker idea of talking them out of their nasty behavior.
The difficulty, as with all good plans, is the execution. Can the American public keep its eye on the larger goal? Will the Iraqi government do those things it previously pledged to do, but couldn’t? Will it be able to take on new responsibilities? We hope so, but really, really aren’t sure.
Most important from the American point of view – will the U.S. take the war to Iran and Syria? JINSA previously advocated – mostly seriously – using our troops primarily to secure the borders of Iraq from foreign interference. If the President is truly planning to ensure that Iran and Syria stop sending fighters, weapons and money into Iraq, there may yet be hope for the Iraqis to make a country. The problem, as usual will be in the execution of what appear to be the right ideas.