Failure in war is Bush’s fault

That was a very good speech that President Bush gave Tuesday. Now if only he would do a better job of actually fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, he wouldn’t have to plead for our support and patience.

For 40 minutes, Bush held forth on the whys and wheres of our enemies. He argued a coherent case and bolstered it with a substantive presentation. He distinguished between Sunni and Shiite extremists, an approach that seemed academic for a president more comfortable with swagger than facts.

He struck the right balance in linking Islam to the heart of the problem. While he noted that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, he didn’t play the politically correct game of pretending that religion is irrelevant. Drawing on quotes from Osama bin Laden and others, he repeatedly cited their goal of establishing a caliphate, or Islamic theocracy, throughout the world.

Indeed, Bush cited so many speeches, documents and operational tracts of al-Qaida and Hezbollah that I began to wonder if he was looking for a teaching job.

But since this was a political speech, Bush punctuated his tutorial with surefire applause lines before an audience of the Military Officers Association of America. After calling the terrorists “evil” and “men without conscience,” he leaned forward and practically shouted, “It is foolish to think you can negotiate with them.” After quoting an Iranian’s advice that America should bow down to Iran if we want good relations, Bush vowed, “America will not bow down to tyrants.”

Tough stuff, well said and a compelling big picture view of the global conflict. Little of it was new, but pulling the threads together to demonstrate Bush’s vision made for a more persuasive effort than another mere repetition of the need to stay the course. That the effort was required by falling public support for the Iraq war and a predicted tide of Democratic victories in the midterm elections is an example of how democracy, like any competition, can raise the level of play.

Yet the 800-pound gorilla in the room was all but ignored: performance. Because I mostly agree with Bush’s view of Islamic terrorism, I’m absolutely dumbfounded about why he has allowed our positions in Iraq and Afghanistan to deteriorate. The performance failure, not the policy, explains why public support is falling.

The failures are all the more puzzling next to Bush’s clear vision of the consequences – the spread of Islamic terrorism to neighboring countries and a less secure America. Given those stakes, why has the president stubbornly stuck with his policies, and his team, when almost nothing has gone right in Iraq? Why hasn’t he been open to new ideas, sought new advisers, tried new strategies, added to our troop levels? Why has he been stingy with troops and dollars in Afghanistan as the Taliban has mounted a strong comeback?

Beats me. And if Bush doesn’t get a better fit between his words and his actions, it could beat him, too. A Democratic takeover of Congress in elections just nine weeks away would make it impossible for him to stay with the same policies. Radical Democrats in the House plan an impeachment effort if they take control.

Ignore, for a moment, the stupidity of that course. The fact remains that Bush has had a largely unfettered hand to do it his way. That he has so far failed to succeed is nobody’s fault but his own. And now time is running out.