What should we make of Bush and Blair’s strange acts of contrition at their joint press conference yesterday? Bush apologized for using overly bellicose language and encouraging the insurgents to ‘bring it on’. He also showed some regret about the damage Abu Ghraib has done to our international image. Meanwhile, Tony Blair cited an overly broad de-Baathification as the main mistake the coalition made in Iraq.
I actually was pleased to see Bush make any concessions at all, even if I was not very impressed with the concessions he chose to make. Bush might be surprised to learn how much goodwill he can regain if he is willing to reach out, admit mistakes, and stop politicizing the debate about the war. He made a tentative step in that direction yesterday, but it surely wasn’t enough to persuade many to trust him again. And more importantly, he didn’t propose anything that might help repair our image in the world. He could shut down Guantanamo. He could disavow secret gulags. He could promise to respect laws and treaties banning cruel and unusual punishment. He could admit that Abu Ghraib was more than the work of a few bad apples and cashier a few generals and high ranking intelligence officers. He did not do any of that, so how seriously can we take his regret over Abu Ghraib? It seems like he recognizes the problem, but is only sorry that we got caught.
Tony Blair’s admission was actually more interesting. Many people have commented on the decision to disband the Iraqi army and de-Baathify the civil service. It is almost universally considered to be a blunder. And, if our intent in Iraq was not a Democracy, or if our number one concern was to limit our casualties and get back out of Iraq as soon as possible, then I would agree that de-Baathification was a mistake. It assured that the country would be dysfunctional, and it assured that the former Iraqi military would become a Sunni insurgency.
However, if our intent was to make Iraq into a shining example of the blessings of liberty and the power of the vote, then it was unavoidable that we would tear out the old government and start from scratch. Tony Blair shouldn’t be regretful about the de-Baathification if he is truly pleased with the elections that brought the Shiites to power. It just sounds silly for Blair to praise a Shiite dominated government in one moment and say the next moment that his biggest regret is that he purged the Sunni-dominated government.
It’s hard to know if this admission of Tony Balir’s is merely ironic, or if he truly is a total moron. Did Blair not contemplate, in advance, the difficulty of replacing a government of secular Sunni Stalinists (representing 20% of the population) with a government of deeply religious Shiites (representing 60% of the population)? Did it not occur to him that a disbanded army that is denied alternative employment will have no alternative but to go on fighting?
What did Bush and Blair really think would happen when they got to Baghdad? Did they think the whole government of theiving brutal thugs would just show up for work as usual and Ahmed Chalabi could be placed on Saddam’s throne? Was that, perhaps, their real mistake? Because it seems to me that de-Baathification was a requirement if our intentions were to establish some kind of democracy in Iraq. So, it can’t have been a mistake. Since I believe Tony Blair when he says he regrets de-Baathification, I can only conclude that he regrets that the end result in Iraq has become a democratically elected government that is more friendly to Iran than to any of its other neighbors, or to us. And if that isn’t bad enough, the government would collapse tomorrow if we left, and may collapse regardless.
We have sacrificed a lot to get a broken government that hates us and is aligned with our enemy. It’s brilliant. Bush keeps talking about ‘winning’ in Iraq, as though there is some outcome possible that we might consider a win. To win, your opponent has to concede defeat, and that is not ever going to happen. The best we can hope for is that the Shiites carry out a sufficiently brutal sectarian cleansing and erect a sufficiently lethal police state that they can provide a modicum of security for the rest of their people. If we want to call that ‘winning’ that’s fantastic. But I don’t think that is what Tony Blair had in mind, somehow, when he was musing over the Downing Street Minutes.
“I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner,” said Bush.
“And I also regret that I put my underwear on backwards in the third grade and waited till lunch to switch it around.
“My mother still teases me about that,” lamented a heavy-hearted president facing the fact that he has killed tens of thousands of innocents, “and Jeb brings it up every Christmas.”
“I do still believe my brother would make a great president, however.”
Among the “he could”s is relieving/retiring Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld over the next five months, which would signal a sea change towards State, away from Defense. (Something about “frog-marching”. . .).
I don’t think we’ve realized the full impact on the public of both leaders admitting mistakes. Unusual for Blair, unseen until yesterday for Bush, and they both have the soft landing of “self-determination” in Iraq. Possible now with Al-Maliki as PM, although as you note, probably brutal.
Nir Rosen might disagree about a collapse if we leave. As usual, the perspective here is from the wrong side of the, um, pond.
what am I supposed to read at Rosen’s place?
Oh, sorry. `Once the Americans leave, Sunnis will have no common cause with foreign mujahideen’. [Boston Review, Jan/Feb 2006].
Actually, I don’t disagree with his analysis.
But he doesn’t touch too much on what might happen to the elected government. Consider this: he is flat out predicting that the Kurds will secede from the union. Isn’t that the same as saying this government will fall? And, as he notes, the Shiites have control of the police and what little army Iraq has. Will they share that power? Seems like they are unwilling to do so. How long will the Sunnis allow themselves to be killed and mocked by the Government before they resign en masse from the parliament?
I hope I’m wrong, but I do not predict that this government will remain intact very long, even if we stay. The break-up should come much faster if we leave, since all security will become their responsibility and they will have no one else to blame. If we are going to stay, but only in vital provinces, it may delay the breakup for a period of time and moderately improve the government’s extremely bleak prospects.
My sense now, is that only a strongman with no use for human rights has any chance of restoring security and assuring the future unity of Iraq. I don’t see how else they can get a handle on crime, let alone stop all the killing going on.
I expect to see the Shi’a start cracking down hard, followed by en masse resignations from the Sunnis, followed by a walk-out of the Kurds. Then the rump government will be taken over by some gang of Shi’a and a rolling civil war will ensue that probably won’t die down for years and years.
I don’t think we can avoid this outcome, although we can delay it, perhaps. There are not too many Iraqis who really want this for their country, and that is one area for hope.
There is a whole debate about whether things will get better once the irritant of American and British forces is taken away. I think it will be better for us to be out of harms way, but I doubt things will improve in any way in Iraq. Every indicator of hell should skyrocket, from kidnapping, to rape, to car bombs, to fire fights.
Maybe there will be less IED’s going off. Other than that, it’s a country without any police or army, so what can you expect in a power vacuum? Things will not improve if we leave. Nevertheless, we should prepare to leave by the end of the year. We don’t want to be there when the shit finally spirals down the drain for good.
Back when the invasion of Iraq was just a badly kept rumor, Thomas Friedman wrote something like “It’s hard to know, looking from outside, whether Iraq is the way it is because of what Saddam is, or Saddam is the way he is because of what Iraq is.” I’d say we’ve learned the answer to that riddle.
It seems to me that the most important “he could” is that he learned a serious lesson in a Iraq and will negotiate brilliantly and honestly with Iran to avoid war.
Ooops. I guess brilliant is out of the question.
The poll numbers demand that Bush become more humanoid in the coming months to help protect his congresspeople in the election.
If he gets the price of gasoline down, he might even succeed….
On the other hand, Blair, the putative leader of the “labour” party is nothing but a neocon apparatchik, helping Bush and Republicans regain favor with the vast American midsection…
Without Blair there would be no catastrophe in Iraq, in my opinion. He’s guiltier than Bush because he at least supposedly has a brain. Or at least a diploma. What a sickening joke Blair is. The scarecrow to Bushs cowardly lion
I wasn’t impressed with his acknowledgment of those mistakes. He looked and sounded an awful lot like my boys used to when I’d make one of them apologize to his brother for being mean or smacking him. He apologized alright, but it was less than sincere.
Clearly Bush was told that he might be able to bring up his poll numbers by appearing human.
It’s all about appearances isn’t it?
I keep imagining Karl Rove greeting his boss with “It’s Showtime!” and then giving him lines.
We also did a story about this supposed press conference.
http://donkephant.blogspot.com/2006/05/misinterpreted.html
Misinterpreted? I don’t think so.
As others have pointed out elsewhere, when you parse the actual language Bush used, he isn’t so much apologizing for his mistakes as apologizing for all the morons around the world who “misinterpreted” his unsophisticated words. I personally can’t think on a single possible interpretation that reflects well on our moron-in-chief, but I don’t live in actionmovieherofantasyland so that might color my perception.
For some reason I am picturing months of debate in the White House before the staff and Fearless Leader finally agreed on the careful wording of this non-apology apology. I’m not impressed.
Exactly! This acknowledgment of mistakes was like an unrepentant alkie apologizing while maintaining it was all the fault of others misapprehension of his good intent. Bush looked more like a middle school student with a couple six packs and a bottle of peppermint schnapps caught by his parents at the beach house than anything else. I don’t think folks are gonna buy this new contrite fearless leader act though. What has kept anyone believing in him at all was his ‘macho’ (I can’t believe anyone thinks he’s macho) image of the stalwart defender of the faith. Now this wussie apologizing for being a straight shooter. The non-ironic trucker hat guys aren’t gonna buy that act……….