President Bush addressed the nation Sunday night from the Oval Office. I address the FlynnFiles nation Sunday night from my office (which is also my living room and my dining room). Here are five points from President Bush's speech that deserve comment:

1. Good for Bush for changing his tone. He ran in 2000 on a foreign policy based on humility and not arrogance. His concession that the Iraq campaign was "more difficult than we expected," his admission that "we did not find" WMDs and that "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," his inclusion of opposition concerns (Are we "creating more problems than we are solving"?), and his assessment that "some of my decisions have led to terrible loss" all represent a return to conciliation. He assumed responsibility. He was George W. Bush and not William Jefferson Clinton.

2. Bush divided the anti-war camp into "honest critics" and "defeatists." As someone who opposes both the president and the tone of the anti-war movement, I'm grateful President Bush made this distinction. I've written about the "defeatists" here, here, here, and elsewhere. In the midst of a heavy amount of criticism of the president, I've highlighted what's going right here, here, here, and elsewhere. I think of myself as an honest critic, but I'm sure all of the people I would throw into the "defeatist" camp think of themselves as "honest critics" too.

3. The president noted that the terrorists "object to our deepest values and our way of life." But they also object to the billions we give in aid to Israel, the presence of the American military on Muslim soil, and repeated American military strikes and invasions in such places as Iran, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Sudan, and Afghanistan. This is not to suggest that we should change policy merely because someone with a bomb wants us to. It is to suggest that the terrorists do care less about how we live in the Western world than they do about how they live in the Islamic world.

4. A case can be made that two of the three "critical elements" of the president's plan aren't in the concrete interests of the United States. The first goal, "finding and clearing out the enemy," is the essential goal of any war. It's necessary to win. But goals two ("helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and lasting democracy") and three ("a reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure") come at the expense of American lives and taxdollars. Goals two and three suggest a foreign policy based on altruism rather than national just interests, and they go against campaign promises of Governor Bush and the sentiments of the entire pre-9/11 conservative movement.

5. President Bush reminded the American people of the benefits of the campaign: the removal of a tyrant whose "power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever" and ten million Iraqis choosing their own government. If the president hopes to win the public-relations war at home, accentuating the positives is necessary. But his definition of victory, "a democratic Iraq that can defend itself, that will never again be a safe haven for terrorists, and that will serve as a model of freedom for the Middle East," seems more in the hands of Iraqis than Americans. Basing an exit strategy on the progress of a third party is dangerous. Iraqis, not Americans, will determine whether a future Iraq is "free and democratic." We can help their future course. We can't determine it. Benjamin Franklin, 218 years ago, told a crowd of Americans that he and his fellow statesmen had given them "a republic, if you can keep it." In other words, Americans, not the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, would determine the ultimate fate of republican governance. America's current position is akin to Franklin's, while Iraq's is akin to the inquisitive crowd of Americans. Americans can help give Iraq a republic, but only Iraqis can ensure that they keep it.

Just one comment, Dan, on #4.

If you believe that a democratic and pro-US Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is in US interests, as Bush obviously does, wouldn't it follow that clearing out the insurgency is then, a strategy that is in US interests?

And if you are against the war and want US troops to come home, wouldn't it follow that doing what is possible to quell the insurgency and bring the boys back as quickly as possible is in US interests?

Ben-T,
Clearing out the insurgency is certainly in our interests. The cost of that action, however, might mean we have a greater interest in not doing it. I believe that at this point we have such an enormous committment of funds, personnel, and credibility that we are compelled to see this through to an Iraqi democratic government that has a good realistic chance of survival.

Webster, it's much more than a matter of being compelled by our investment in the war. Whatever you think about the war, the world is far better off without Sadaam in power and with a free and democratic Iraq in his place. WMDs were not the only reason for the war; so was regime change and we have succeeded in accomplishing this.

President Bush's own definition of victory -- when the Iraqi people can stand up we'll stand down -- is not a "victory" that is in our interests. It illustrates that we are not fighting "terrorists" but are functioning as a provisional Iraqi police force. This implies we can withdraw from Iraq not when the insurgents/terrorists are defeated but when they can be handled by Iraqis. Glib cliches and cheap sound bites are the only remaining justifications for the war in Iraq -- reality has left them.

Most of this would be a moot point if we fought to win, instead of fighting not to offend. When the resistance started up in Sadr City, we should have leveled it. Instead, we backed off and let the militia keep control. Muslims respect strength, they see us as weak. They saw the same in Faluja. We are more concerned with offending other countries than with winning with the least amount of casualties. Now we have this mess, and it is of our own making.

Wm, This mess could have been easily avoided if we had chose not to invade Iraq in the first place. Declaring we are liberating the Iraqi people while levelling their cities would earn us a place in the annals of hyprocricy right up there with the United Nations, Libya and Fidel Castro.

"President Bush's own definition of victory -- when the Iraqi people can stand up we'll stand down -- is not a "victory" that is in our interests. It illustrates that we are not fighting "terrorists" but are functioning as a provisional Iraqi police force. This implies we can withdraw from Iraq not when the insurgents/terrorists are defeated but when they can be handled by Iraqis. Glib cliches and cheap sound bites are the only remaining justifications for the war in Iraq -- reality has left them." -Eric Wilds

That is, besides the frozen programs that were supposed to have been closed down, the dual use biological and chemical materials that were shipped out of the country prior to the war, the banned long range missiles that he wasn't supposed to have, the 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons, the 1,000 radioactive materials ideal for dirty bombs, the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, and the mountain of support for international terrorism.

But besides that, the war supports are grasping at straws.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2005-351.pdf

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/iraqindex.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004

More on request.

As for Bush's definition of victory, I would suggest inquiring minds look into The United States of America's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

Ben,

So now that "democracy in Iraq" can also be translated as "theocracy from Iran" the Bush cultists are now trying to go to the original case for war: WMD. Sorry, but the Bush Administration has already acknowledged the "intelligence" was wrong and that's because Iraq didn't have any WMD.

If you recall Iraq began to voluntarily to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles that could go more than 150 km. After it broke these missiles down it then of course did ship the scrap metal out of the country where it ended up in landfills. We also know that Iraq had uranium in IAEA seals as well as HMX. However this material was already under IAEA supervision and Saddam had no obligation to remove it from the country. Everyone knew this before the war. But now you're trying to portray something that isn't news as some kind of significant revelation. Iraq had no WMD -- biological material or chemical weapons, and the Bush Administration knew this.

"So now that "democracy in Iraq" can also be translated as "theocracy from Iran" -Eric Wilds

unsupported assertion. Nor am I changing my case for war. I feel the war was justified for reasons that existed before the war, I feel the war is justified for reasons that have come to exist after it. I feel it is a two-fold justified action.

"the Bush cultists are now trying to go to the original case for war: WMD. Sorry, but the Bush Administration has already acknowledged the "intelligence" was wrong and that's because Iraq didn't have any WMD." -Eric Wilds

The casus belli was that A.) There was a real danger of proliferation of WMD or WMD materials from Saddam's government to international terrorist agencies. B.) Saddam was in material breach of his disarmament obligations.

The intelligence collected since the war as shown that these were both true. If you have contrary evidence, pleace provide it.

"If you recall Iraq began to voluntarily to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles that could go more than 150 km. After it broke these missiles down it then of course did ship the scrap metal out of the country where it ended up in landfills." -Eric Wilds

Not at all what the report indicates. You're inventing excuses.

"Iraq had no WMD -- biological material or chemical weapons, and the Bush Administration knew this." -Eric Wilds

except that he did have biological and chemical materials, as the UN reports indicate.

"Everyone knew this before the war. But now you're trying to portray something that isn't news as some kind of significant revelation." -Eric Wilds

Yes, we did know this before the war. Where did I paint it as a new revelation?

Here is what I feel constitutes the casus belli.

A.) For twelve years, Saddam Hussein had avoided his disarmament obligations at every opportunity and had continuously done whatever possible to keep as many weapons materials in his country as possible. There is only one possible reason why Saddam Hussein would have wanted nearly 2 tons of enriched uranium, and it's an obvious one.

B.) WMD programs that Saddam Hussein had been ordered to shut down were only frozen, lying dormant until they could awaken, as shown by the Duelfer report.

C.) Saddam had much of the UN on his bribery list and fully intended to bribe his way out of sanctions, as shown by the Volcker report. He was making much headway in this.

D.) Saddam Hussein was engaging in widespread support of international terrorist agencies. He was known for both his willingness to support international terrorism against the US and her allies and his willingness to use Weapons of Mass Destruction, as he had do against Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and his own people in the past.

In my opinion, when you have a murderous dictator who has been evading his disarmament obligations for twelve years, is being held in material breach of those obligations by the UN, has frozen programs he was suppoed to have destroyed, is actively attempting to bribe his way out of UN sanctions, is engaged in supporting international terrorist agencies, and is well known for his willingness to use WMDs, you have a recipe for regime change.

It is this that was the casus belli, as defined in the 2002 State of the Union address and George W. Bush's 2003 speech before the United Nations, the two speeches which formed the core of the case for war. The Bush administration was clear that the danger was not that Saddam Hussein was not going to launch large, shiny missiles, from large, shiny siloes, with big colorful Iraqi flags painted oun them towards US cities. The danger was of WMD or WMD material proliferation to international terrorist agencies from Saddam's government.

I do not know what your personal criteria are for when the United States is warranted in acting against regimes that support terrorism Eric, but I do know that the criteria on which we invaded Iraq are well within the bounds of America's National Security Strategy.

"We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and ana-lysis.

Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:

* Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed.We must ensure that key capabilities—detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities—are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD-armed adversaries.
* Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies, and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials.We will continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G-8 agreement to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step forward.
* Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

The NSS is clear. We should attack rogue states that we believe seek WMDs BEFORE they get the chance to acquire those weapons. We should be not reactive but pro-active in our counter-proliferation efforts.

Now, if you take issue with the strategic plan put forth by the NSS, that's certainly a valid stance to take, and I'd like to hear your case.

You can read the full strategy here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

"Wm, This mess could have been easily avoided if we had chose not to invade Iraq in the first place." Eric Wilds
Understood. My point is, we are there. This is reality, not a what if. Since we are there, we should do what is necessary to win. Do you not think this is so? We can argue all day as to should we or should not we have, but the fact remains. We did. Win it and let's go home. Save the what if's for another time.

Ben,

Let me try this one more time: Iraq had no WMD. The Bush Administration knew this before the war began. We were lied into war.

Whether or not Saddam secretly wished to resume his WMD program is pure speculation and one that we could debate endlessly. However, what is not debateable is the fact that Iraq was not producing any WMD in 2002 and early 2003 -- contrary to the assertions of the Bush Administration -- and had largely destroyed his older stock of WMD. After 1995 Iraq had not rebuilt a single WMD factory nor produced single a bioligical or chemical agent. So if Saddam was so hellbent on acquiring these weapons why did he let his factories sit dormant for at least 8 years, even while the inspectors were away?

The uranium in Iraq was under the control of the IAEA. Iraq has no authority to use the uranium, sell it or use it to resume a nuclear weapon progam. So while it did technically belong to Iraq it was not material what was under the control of Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

Throwing out silly assertions that Saddam sponsored "a mountain of terrorism," sounds like OJ Simpson's "I'm 100% absolutely not guilty."

Iraq did use WMD against Iran but this was hardly a concern at that time, and Donald Rumsfeld was even sent to Iraq as a personal envoy of the Reagan Administration to forge closer diplomatic ties Saddam Hussein. In fact the Reagan Administration took Iraq off the list of states that sponsor terrorism in 1982. This is rather ironic; when Saddam was using WMD we did not condemn their use and did not accuse his country of supporting terrorism; once Saddam eliminates his WMD then he becomes a grave terrorist threat.

While Iraq was on the list of states that sponsor terrorism our own State Department said that Iraq had not engaged in any anti-western terrorism, unlike Libya and Iran.

In another ironic twist, the only terrorist group that Saddam supported was the MEK, a secular anti-Iranian group that is now the apple of the Neocon eye. It's rather ridiculous; we accuse Saddam of supporting terrorism and then we try and enlist the support of the same terrorist group he supported.

Actually, the Bush Administration did state that Iraq could launch an attack on this country from either unmanned aerial drones or warships outside the country. Not suprisingly, this "intelligence" also turned out to be wrong.

So the case for going into Iraq consists in speculation -- that Iraq wants to resume its WMD program and also wants to use WMD against this country. The other case is because Saddam supported a terrorist group, the MEK, that just also happens to share the same foreign policy objective -- the overthrow of the Iranian mullahs -- as the Neocons. This isn't a war for our national security. It's a farce.

Wm.

We've already won everything worth winning -- Saddam in custody and no WMD. The latter we won even before the war began. So there's no reason to stay in Iraq another single day.