Weekly Shredder 43:
Bush's Iraq Speech
by James Norton

Uh oh. President Bush's numbers are sagging to the point where he actually has to address the American people again.

Bush, whose petulant attitude toward public speaking closely resembles the way 12-year-olds feel about raking the yard, gave a speech on Iraq earlier this week. The message was mixed — lots of "why we're fighting" and not so much "how we're going to win."

We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand.

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

What fantastic news — all the world's terrorists are in Iraq, and once we wipe them out, everything is cool again! Once we wrap up this little tussle, we throw a pizza party, send the Japanese in to clean up the debris and build some new bridges and go back to watching "Dancing With the Stars."

Unfortunately, terrorists are not an endangered breed of pangolin. They don't breed slowly, or even stay "terrorists" forever.

In the world of George W. Bush, there are "terrorists" and "good Iraqis." This is the sort of binary thinking that makes staying "on message" and writing rhetoric a breeze. It's utile.

But it's stupid. No one learns a damn thing about what's actually going on.

Instead of there being two kinds of Iraqi ("good" and "bad"), let's think of all Iraqis as falling into one of five categories.

FRIENDLY — An Iraqi who supports the US cause, either by giving Americans reliable information and support, or by buying into the military and political systems that the United States is building in Iraq.

NEUTRAL — An Iraqi who takes no overt action against or in favor of the US presence, instead remaining on the sidelines. Or an Iraqi who participates in the political system and breaks no laws (thus helping the US), but pushes for the immediate expulsion of US troops through diplomatic means (thus undermining the US.)

OPPONENT — Former Baathists, dedicated Islamists and other anti-American types who haven't taken up arms, but give money, political support and other forms of aid to those who want to drive the US and its allies out of Iraq. May operate within the political sphere, or edit anti-American literature.

INSURGENT — A combatant who is trying to kill American troops, but not kidnapping or killing of civilians.

TERRORIST — A combatant using the most irresponsible tactics (suicide bombing Iraqi recruits, the kidnapping or killing of civilians or aid workers, etc.) to destabilize the pro-US regime and the American forces.

Even these categories blur. If an "opponent" gives money to support the family of a suicide bomber, can't we say he's a terrorist? Or at least a "terror supporter"? What if a former terror cell captain decides to throw his lot in with American-style democracy, disband his group and run for public office as a moderate? Still a terrorist? Kill the guy, or fund his new party?

Not to completely bust the confines of reality, but here's a speech that Bush could give if he wanted to address what's actually going on in Iraq:

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

There is, however, a limit to the lives that many of the insurgents are willing to take. This depends largely on whether they are Iraqis fighting clan vendettas, former Baathists who want a piece of the political pie or Islamists who are pursuing an anti-imperialist agenda. And so, we will deal with them appropriately, cutting deals with the more reasonable Baathists, using financial settlements to address clan vendettas and sublimating the Islamists' frustration through legitimate political participation whenever possible.

Everybody else we kill. Fast as we can.

At the same time, we recognize that the more people we kill, the more outraged friends, relatives and neighbors we have to deal with. And we recognize that Iraq is both a training ground for active terrorists and a recruiting tool for violently anti-American Islamists around the world.

So we will fight this war with a combination of discretion and tenacity. We will respect the human rights of Iraqis, and send a message by putting the architects of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuse scandals on trial. Sorry, Alberto.

We will use creative methods of promoting buy-in to promote democracy, and use deadly force as a last resort — not a first solution. And we will tell the American people the truth about the challenges that face us, not just in Iraq, but in supposedly friendly countries such as Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

During a war on terror, you can't afford to have your leaders lying to you, or giving you bad information. And during my administration, I will make sure that you have the whole truth about what your government is doing to keep you safe.

But it would take political courage — the grown-up equivalent of raking the leaves without even being told.

And how likely is that?

E-mail James Norton at jrnorton@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)