Skip to main content

Multiple audiences and messages

George Bush has spoken! - from the Oval Office - on Iraq. No great surprises in a speech essentially written by the military. Leaving to one side increasing questions hanging over the integrity of General Patreaus, and his agenda, the NY Times in a News Analysis, post the speech, concludes that Bush gave multiple messages to multiple audiences:

"President Bush addressed three very different audiences on Thursday night, and he had to hope that each would hear a different message.

To an American public overwhelmingly searching for an exit from Iraq, Mr. Bush said that he was now ready to take his first, halting steps toward drawdown — even if what he described as a “return on success” was more akin, in the eyes of his critics, to a recognition that he has run out of additional forces to sustain the troop buildup he began this year, and now has no other choice.

To Iraq’s leaders, who failed to take advantage of what the Bush administration characterized in January as their last chance to reach political reconciliation, Mr. Bush’s message was that America would stay for the long haul. But he also warned, once again, that time was running out to hold the country together.

And to the insurgents who have fought to force the United States out of Iraq — and most important to the mullahs in Tehran — Mr. Bush sent a declaration that the United States was not leaving, and that it would be a force to reckon with for years. He sent the same message, his aides said, to Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, who fear that if America throws in the towel the result could be greater chaos, and the rise of Iran as the regional power, perhaps backed by nuclear arms.

Mr. Bush’s speech was the culmination of a monthlong, highly orchestrated game plan to change the political debate in Washington and the country. But in the end, the speech once again raised the question of what America’s mission in Iraq really is — and how long it will last."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...