Presidential Detail

George W. Bushs series of five speeches on Iraq are crucial for the reconstruction effort in that strife-ridden country. Bush must persuade the public that real progress is being made if the siren calls for withdrawal are not to hurl the mission onto the rocks. His speech last week to the Council on Foreign Relations on Iraq was unusualand persuasive. Rather than address yet another cheering military audience, Bush chose to speak before an audience of somnolent (and skeptical) Washington elders. More remarkable, he ditched his usual bombast for detail. Of course, Bush still delivered his standard line that we can be confident of the outcome because we know that freedom has got the power to overcome terror and tyranny. But he also included details on the reconstruction effort that have been noticeably absent from previous speeches. Speaking of Najaf and Mosul, Bush talked electricity, water, sewage, hospitals, and roads. He even boasted that in Najaf, Americans and Iraqis reopen[ed] a soccer stadium, complete with new lights and fresh sod. The CEO president now sounds like a project manager.

He has little choice. With just 40 percent of Americans characterizing their president as honest and trustworthy, the trust me refrain of previous speeches no longer works. There was a point reached long ago when saying, Trust me, I know what Im doing, trust me, what Im doing is right, and you know who I am, lost its impact, says Clifford May, president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and former director of communications for the Republican National Committee.

Bushs new tack is one that his political allies have been urging on him for some time. A month ago, Sen. John McCain implored the administration to drop the rosy talk. On November 27, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner, called on Bush to start delivering Franklin D. Roosevelt-style fireside chats to the American people on the situation in Iraq. But old habits die hard. His third speech, delivered to the Philadelphia World Affairs Council on Monday, was long on fine words about democracy, but short on benchmarks. Those who heard Bush declare, I’ll discuss the political element of our strategy in greater detail at the end of his speech last week must have been disappointed.

In his next two public addresses, Bush would do well to revert back to last weeks focus on details. At the very least, it would make clear to the rest of the government that microprojects are presidential priorities. As May notes, It also makes sense for him to be telling the State Department and other bureaucracies that this is my policy, this is how you should understand it, this is how you should defend and implement it and I am very committed to itand you need to be. The projects that Bush highlights in his detailed briefings will attract thorough media scrutiny, and any backsliding will be news.

The new language might also reflect a fundamental shift in the Bush administrations approach. Too often in Iraq, poor follow-up has squandered big successes. A brilliant military campaign was spoiled by a failure to restore order quickly after the fall of Saddam. When it came to the reconstruction of Iraq, administrator L. Paul Bremer and his team concentrated on huge public works projects that required American expertise, rather than on smaller projects that would have employed Iraqis and rapidly improved peoples quality of life. Diplomatically, the Bush administration missed the brief window for securing international assistance on U.S. terms. If Bush had gone to the United Nations the day after the toppling of Saddams statue, he would have been able to get pretty much any resolution he wanted. Bushs new language suggests that he now appreciates that the follow-through is as important as the initial triumph. That realization is crucial, as the administration must capitalize on any success in the December 15 election in order to reassure a skeptical U.S. public.

After Sept. 11, 2001, Bush developed a grand strategy for how to make the United States more secure. But he still acted like the CEO president that he had campaigned as in 2000. Bob Woodwards Plan of Attack reveals how detached from the nitty-gritty of war planning Bush actually was, leaving most of the details to his cabinet. Bush now seems to have realized that vision alone is not enough. Unfortunately, the Philadelphia speech suggests that Bush might only have realized the politicaland not the practicalimportance of having a mind for details.