Editorial: Far too late for US to turn back

Opinion

The problem with set-piece political speeches, as Don Brash is discovering with his annual date at Orewa , is that it is difficult to meet expectations. And so it is with the State of the Union address in Washington.

Initial reaction to President George W. Bush's 2006 offering suggests that his American audience was not overwhelmed. His effort seems unlikely to materially improve his poll ratings which, although they have recovered a little since they hit rock bottom in the wake of the New Orleans disaster, are at a level similar to those endured by Richard Nixon just before he resigned over Watergate.

The speech writers essayed a few gestures towards pushing the hot buttons. "The American people have turned in an economic performance that is the envy of the world, " Mr Bush proclaimed and he celebrated America's creation of 4.6 million new jobs, "more than Japan and the European Union combined".

But the tone of the address was lacking in gung-ho triumphalism, which perhaps marks a realistic assessment of the current status of his presidency. Inevitably the speech was dominated by Iraq and foreign policy, the issues which, both in the short term for the Republicans and historically for Mr Bush's leadership, will be the benchmarks of his term in office.

"I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win and we are winning, " he boldly told Congress. But his other remarks reflected an acknowledgment of the complexities of the plight in which he has embroiled his country. America's military interventions since the end of World War II could not, in the most generous assessment, be considered a chronicle of unqualified successes. Yet the idea that you can drop troops overseas, score a quick and overwhelming victory and pull out covered in roses and glory has had an apparently overwhelming allure.

But Mr Bush is now more clearly than before expressing the recognition that the Iraqi adventure is beset with difficulty. "Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction."

The President still portrays the invasion and the crises over the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions and the electoral victory of Hamas as part of his wider aim for America, a truly global vision of his nation's role. "We seek the end of tyranny in our world," he says, and for his domestic audience suggests that only the defeat of forces such as radical Islam will enable Americans to sleep safely in their beds.

He continues to insist that the US must assume its world leadership role for the sake of its own peace and for the rest of us. "The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world. Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth."

There is no reason to doubt the President's heartfelt belief in all of this but even if hindsight were to give him pause he has no alternative. Whether or not one shares his belief that Iraq is heading on the right road to an enduring democracy, few of the most ardent critics of the Iraq war, inside or outside America, would realistically suggest that a precipitate American cut and run would lead to an outbreak of peace. An American failure of nerve would encourage the extremists who are, in truth, enemies of the best Western values and dishearten those who in Iraq and Afghanistan, where New Zealand personnel are so deeply committed, are trying to usher in an end to despotism. It can be, and is, argued that Mr Bush's decision to invade Iraq was a catastrophe but we all have to live with his conclusion that "there is no honour in retreat".