Thursday, September 13, 2007

Kagan, Hanson, May, Yon...   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

We're rolling out responses to our post-address symposium as they come in (there may be a few more in a bit). Up now are Kimberly Kagan,Victor Davis Hanson, and Michael Yon. Kagan says, in part:

Senator Jack Reed gave the Democratic response, and the contrast with Bush’s speech was striking to those who paid careful attention. Bush addressed the situation in Iraq with detail and nuance. He described varying situations on the ground in different, specific regions of the country, spoke of particular movements and individuals, and showed a grasp of the complexity and reality of the struggle. Reed spoke only in generalizations. He did not refer to any specific events, places, or individuals in Iraq. He spoke generally of a “Democratic plan” for withdrawal that sounded remarkably like the Baker-Hamilton plan, originally presented at the end of 2006 in a completely different operational context. The vagueness of his discussion of the situation and of his proposals contrasted starkly with the specificity even of Bush’s speech, to say nothing of the incredible complexity and detail evinced in the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. That contrast highlights once more what is really the key question of the upcoming political debate over Iraq: Whom do the American people want to run this war, Congress or the people who know something about it?

VDH notes:

He didn’t even mention Saddam by name; that war is over and won. What faces the United States now is a new war against radical Islam that continues to foment sectarian strife to destroy the young democracy and recreate another Afghan-like haven.

Yon writes:

My only question watching the hearings, and listening to the president’s address Thursday night, was whether Congress and the administration had learned from their many mistakes. From Bush’s speech, it’s clear the president had heard and listened to his two top officials in Iraq. Petraeus and Crocker told the truth, as did the president.

And to me — who thought the president would have been better off not speaking this week — Cliff says:

But Thursday night Bush said something important — and he had to say it himself: Success in Iraq now means the U.S. defeats al Qaeda there (in what al Qaeda sees as the most important theater in its global struggle against us), frustrates Tehran’s hegemonic ambitions, and establishes a long-term relationship — political, economic and military — with the government and peoples of Iraq.

More here.

09/13 11:05 PMShare