http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/...9960&frame=true

All talk: Editorial: Speeches Instead of Strategy
The Wichita Eagle

September 01, 2006

The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq If a country can win a war by speechifying, then the Bush team is well on its way to 'mission accomplished' in Iraq. The worse it gets over there, the more speeches Americans get, and the more disconnected the inflated rhetoric gets from actual conditions on the ground.

President Bush gave another boilerplate talk Thursday, following the same grossly simplistic and misleading talking points that Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have tested on friendly crowds in recent days.

Cheney castigated critics who 'claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.' Rumsfeld also raised the specter of Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler, telling his audience that 'many have still not learned history's lessons' and 'believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased.'

They presented no evidence that any Democratic leader has called for appeasement or an end to the war on terror.

For his part, the president followed a familiar script. 'The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq,' he declared.

The problem is, fewer and fewer Americans believe such grossly simplified formulations.

Bush noted in passing the recent British foiling of an airplane bomb plot as evidence that terrorists are still out there plotting. But what does a bogged-down military occupation in Iraq have to do with catching Osama bin Laden or stopping terrorists living in London or other world capitals?

Americans' growing doubts about the war aren't the result of 'self-defeating pessimists' (Cheney's words) but rather the administration's ongoing failure to establish order and security in Iraq and provide the resources and strategy necessary to win.

It might be too much to expect a reasoned, bipartisan discussion about Iraq with so much at stake in the upcoming congressional elections, and with the war in Iraq a top concern with voters.

Still, this nation deserves an honest, realistic debate about the U.S. strategy in the war on terror. Bush and his surrogates have forestalled such debate by accusing critics on Iraq of favoring a 'cut and run' strategy.

What many Americans of both parties are now asking for is not appeasement but a clearer plan for success in the war on terror. Instead of detailed strategy, though, we're getting more speeches.

Copyright © 2006 The Wichita Eagle, All Rights Reserved.