PDA

View Full Version : The New Campaign For Hearts and Minds



thedrifter
07-02-05, 05:10 AM
06.29.2005
The New Campaign For Hearts and Minds
By Chad Miles

This is the speech that I wish President Bush would have given during the 2004 election campaign last year when the rhetoric on Iraq had reached a fever pitch and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" was in full propaganda mode in theaters across the country.

The president's speech Tuesday night at Fort Bragg was a clear and effective enumeration of why we are there and what still needs to be done before we can begin to pull out.

Bush opened with an oblique shot across the bow of his own critics when he described the terrorists in Iraq as murdering "in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent." After all, we have heard time and time again about the "right to dissent" by critics of the president and his administration since 9/11. The underlying message was clear: we tolerate dissent, they do not.

Bush also succeeded in portraying how the terrorists view the United States and the Western world: They "believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent." No matter how many times you criticize Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib, all it takes is watching one movie from Hollywood to reinforce this idea in the minds of Islamic fundamentalists.

The majority of the speech nicely encapsulated the steady accomplishments that the U.S. military and the Iraqis have made since the 2003 invasion. This is probably the most effective part of the speech, since lately it has become rare that we read or hear in the news media any positive things about our soldiers or the results of their mission.

And the president's decision to stress the connection between the Iraqi "insurgency" and foreign jihadist fighters was important since there has been a recurring and troubling undercurrent in media reports that the violence comes largely from Iraqi rebels and not extremists from outside the country who are trying to destabilize the fledgling interim government.

The heart of the president's speech, of course, addressed what we might call the "light at the end of the tunnel" factor: The possibility of a deadline for the current U.S. military force to remain in its current mission, the chance of sending more troops to Iraq in the interim, and the details of how we will turn over military operations to the Iraqi police and military.

Bush declared, to no one's surprise, that there would be no additional U.S. troops deployed to Iraq above and beyond the 139,000 already there. He also stressed that the endgame will involve the transition of military initiative to the Iraqis, and flatly refused to set an arbitrary deadline for us to begin withdrawing.

Some may not consider the president's "no deadlines" statement as very hopeful, but you have to read between the lines on this one. Bush could have easily said, "We are not going to announce a deadline." Clearly, the United States will withdraw the majority of our soldiers within the next two years, but to give a detailed plan of this in advance would be foolish and would give our enemies a psychological and propaganda tool to use against us.

Yet another important point the president cited was the "ripple effect" stemming from the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime. He noted that the situation in Iraq has prompted Libya to publicly abandon its own WMD programs, and has encouraged movements for democratic reform in Lebanon, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority. This is an extremely important point to make and was mostly directed at Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Without a doubt, the president was at his most effective when he wound up his remarks with a heartfelt "thank you" to the troops and their families. My only criticism was that it should have been at the very beginning of his address.

Our troops deserve to know that the American people support them, especially because a growing number of Americans, reinforced by administration critics in Congress, are casting doubts on Iraq policies (if not the troops themselves). It is no mere rhetorical flourish for the president to tell the troops that history will look fondly upon them and they are among the honored ranks of veterans that have served and defended this country throughout its history.

In the immediate aftermath of the Fort Bragg speech, I heard many people interviewed who questioned why the president even gave this speech since there was nothing new to be said.

The answer came to me when a Detroit radio station that had broadcast the speech conducted a follow-up interview with an Imam from a local mosque. The 15-minute "interview" consisted of the host asking the Imam a single question – "What did you think of the president's speech?" – followed by a nonstop diatribe against the president on the Imam's part alleging that things are getting worse every day in Iraq, we (the United States) are negotiating with terrorists because we are weak, we need to hear a detailed withdrawal plan, and we had absolutely no plan at all when we invaded Iraq.

This is the reason that President Bush gave this speech: In addition to the classic "fog of war" on the battlefield, there is the need to cut through both the "fog" of partisan opposition and honest doubt concerning the swirl of events in Iraq.

The second front of the Global War on Terrorism is an intellectual battle for the hearts and minds of Americans and Iraqis alike. With critics such as the Detroit Imam spouting their venom, that's why the president's speech was so important.

Ellie