The Presidential Offensive: Too Little, Too Late?

© Dr. Gary D. Lemmons, September 10, 2006

The President has done a good job over the past couple of weeks explaining the war against Islamist fanaticism and reminding us of what is at stake.   It is too bad he has not “communicated” this well over the past five years!

Despite the assertion of the liberals, I have never believed that the war, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, was about oil.  Neither have I bought the “idiocy” that some leftist fanatics have spewed that “Georgie” was trying to exact some revenge against Saddam Hussein for the latter’s  engagement with and threats against “Bush 41.”

To his credit, the President has said all along what the purpose of the military efforts of the United States is.  He has reiterated that purpose in his speeches over the past several days.  He believes the way to defeat Islamist fanaticism is to establish “democratic” governments in the region.  These governments, once secure in themselves, will rise to the task of destroying Islamist fanaticism and, more important, will provide the environment and opportunities that will cause the populace to be drawn away from supporting the terrorists and the “culture of death.”

Despite the denials of the conservative right, this is “nation building.”  It is an excellent strategy, in theory, but, alas, someone has not told the President that the Iraqi people have never had the opportunity to live “democratically.”  Consequently, a lot of education, training, growing, and, one suspects, dying is going to have to be done prior to their achieving a level of sophistication in self-government.

The trouble all along has been the advisors the President has surrounded himself with.  At best he has had “C” grade bureaucrats in a number of key positions…not the least of which has been in the office of Secretary of Defence.

More than anything else, I fault the President for not finding a “wise warrior” to direct our military in this difficult and dangerous time.  For the greatest and wealthiest nation on the face of the earth to send our troops into harm’s way, which we did initially, without the very finest equipment and munitions is a “crime” for which, in my judgment, Secretary Rumsfeld should be tried.  For us to try to occupy a nation the size of Iraq with 130,000 troops, when at least twice that number is needed, is unconscionable.

Do I believe the President’s speeches in this “drive to the mid-term elections” will make a difference?

It is hard to say.  The vast number of Americans is polarized pro or con toward Bush.  The “undecided” element of the population is very, very small.  Sad to say, many “undecided” are really “unconcerned.”

Success in the fall elections is going to determine on which group gets their people to the polls.  Generally, the turn-out in mid-term elections is smaller than in presidential contests, but I suspect this year we may see a larger number of folks appearing to cast their ballot as a referendum vote on the conduct of the war and, perhaps, as a statement on the President’s overall performance.

We shall see.