The losing of the war in Iraq, if it comes to that, will have a great deal to do with how the Bush administration has chosen to communicate its goals and objectives.
For instance, it can be argued that we have already won the war. There was no fundamental untruth at the moment President Bush stood on the aircraft carrier under the banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” The men and women on that ship had accomplished their mission.
The purpose of the war was to remove Saddam Hussein as a threat and destroy any capability the country had to produce weapons of mass destruction or aid terrorists. We did that. We never accurately communicated or explained what our mission would be after the overthrow of Saddam. That’s where the problem lies.
What would have happened if a single air strike had taken him out the night before the invasion? You may remember we missed by minutes or yards, however you want to calculate it.
A Matter Of Definition
As debate rages in this country about what to do next, it seems that our present mission could be more simply defined. In short, our only military goal now should be to support the Iraqi government until we are sure it can defend itself. If we can be sure the government won’t collapse once our troops start heading home, then we have accomplished our mission.
President Bush would help himself, the country and the troops if he could boil our new objectives down into simple, achievable terms. “We will leave when the job is done,” is too broad. It seems out of reach. “We will leave when the Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet,” is something most of us can envision as a possibility.
It would narrow the mission of our troops and probably reduce our causalities. Currently, U.S. forces in Iraq are trying to tame the entire country. Protecting the safety and security of the new government is an easier task and would require more from the government itself.
Sen. John McCain is trying to present himself as the presidential candidate who would bring this kind of approach to ending the war. Set realistic goals and apply the resources necessary to achieve them. He has also said, if he is elected president, he will provide the American people with an update on the war’s progress every two weeks.
The perfect tool to make that happen would be the president’s weekly radio address. Ronald Reagan brought back the weekly radio address from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and it has been a mostly ignored presidential tradition since then. It is time to update the radio address and turn it into a weekly television address. A weekly television address would receive more coverage and engage more Americans on the issues of the day.
Reality Broadcasting
No one sits around the radio with the family on Saturday morning to listen to the president. It is a concept as antiquated as the pony express. It is a waste of the president’s time. Like talking to a brick wall.
Developments in the war in Iraq are relayed to us on a minute-by-minute basis. The president (Bush, McCain, or anyone else) needs to engage the American people in a more effective and direct way.
FDR was considered a master of communication in his day. Then JFK wore that label, followed by Reagan and to some extent Clinton. The current President Bush has relied on the communications’ techniques of his predecessors. In fact, he has perfected them. The problem is they are old tools. This president — and the next one — needs new tools to communicate effectively.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
