| Home > Community Forum > "Shedding the Unreality": The Bush Administration Climbs Back Out of the Rabbit Hole « Previous Entry | Next Entry » |
August 14, 2005
"Shedding the Unreality": The Bush Administration Climbs Back Out of the Rabbit Hole
by Public Theologian
Well the truth is finally dawning on the White House about its disastrous war on Iraq. With the civil war about to break out of the simmer stage to a full, rolling boil, it has become clear even inside the administration that the neo con fantasy of a modern democracy is in a shambles. From yesterday’s Washington Post:
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Oh what a candid admission—shedding the unreality. There were many of us who pointed out this unreality before the war, but we were accused of being unpatriotic, supporters of terrorists, not living in the “real” post 911 world, and the like. Well now who’s living in the “real” world? The fact is that the people running this war—Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz et al, were all Cold War retreads, who could give you lots of detail about Europe and the Russians, but who sadly didn’t know jack about Islam. The one person on the team with serious experience in dealing with Islam, Colin Powell, was, as we all know the very ineffective brake for this out of control locomotive (remember the Pottery Barn?). Moreover, as Frank Rich reminded us in his scathing op-ed yesterday in the New York Times, the most significant pre-war brush off of “reality” came when the Bushies ignored and then dismissed General Eric Shinseki who told them the truth that they did not want to hear, which was that Iraq would need at least double the planned force in order to be adequately secured in a post war environment. Perhaps President Bush can explain the finer points of that decision to Cindy Sheehan, the mother of the dead soldier camped outside his ranch in Crawford, once he’s finished chopping wood.
The administration professes shock at the Kurdish and Shiite demands in the constitutional process. How naïve can these people possibly be? Do they think they are dealing with Madison and Jefferson here? What in the world do you think would make the 70,000 armed Kurds in the northern part of the country want to join up in a government with the Sunnis who had been oppressing them for years? And what in the world would make the Shiites, who have an insurmountable majority of the population, simply cede power to these other groups rather than demanding their own Islamic Republic, in the name of democratic self-determination, which is supposedly what Bush is always preaching? And what in the world possessed the Bush administration to think that in a region that had had to be subdued by force that everything was going to be sweetness and light once the dictator was gone? Didn’t these European experts learn anything from the death of Tito in Yugoslavia? The Bushies are finding out now exactly WHY Saddam was a brutal dictator—it was the only way to keep the state intact. And now, after having promised the world that they would not allow the creation of three or even two states, they may just have to give way to reality on that score as well, assuming they don’t want another strong man or a civil war.
Yet even with this disaster on its hands, the Bush administration is already shopping its next war—with Iran. The President made that point in his remarks this week, between cords of wood, when he said that “all options are on the table” with respect to Iran. Whether they actually go through with it or not, W is well aware that the saber rattling, though destructive internationally, has the desired effect on American politics. As Iraq becomes more dire day by day and as the 2006 mid-term elections near we should not be surprised to hear more out of the right wing spin machine of the clear and present danger which the Iranians pose to American security. Polls show, however, that the right has gone to that well too often, cried “wolf” one too many times, and that the American people are not buying it. The electorate, it seems, has already shed its “unreality” and is now staring at the cold hard facts of the debacle that Iraq has become.
Posted by Public Theologian at August 14, 2005 09:57 PM
Comments
And yet the Commander-in-Chief, who actually issues the orders, remains firmly committed to "stay the course".
I do not, personally, favor an immediate pull-out. We simply cannot walk away from the mess we created. Rather, we have to work harder with our allies to get real forces in real numbers on the ground. We can't wait until Iraqi police forces are ready - the violence must be stopped immediately. Obviously, more of the same isn't going to work.
You can only make progress when you first start with reality.
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan at August 15, 2005 12:23 PM
PT,
What we have is, as you have pointed out, a war which was horribly ill-conceived, and a president whose motives for starting it are extremely questionable. Anyone who knows anything about Islam could have told you that instead of stopping the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists it would only make matters worse. And guess what? Surprise, surprise. It has! Rallying Islamic extremists from all over the middle-east (and the WORLD, for that matter), "W" has started a fire which is going to be burning for a VERY long time. People did try to tell him that, and he wouldn't listen. And as far as "freeing" the Iraqi people, this is one supremely interesting way of doing it. Granted, Hussein and sons were, quite simply, evil, but the solution was to end up getting all of these Iraqi people killed? Along with a couple of thousand Americans, and for what? So that the Shiites could end up heavily influencing the government, and an Iraq that will certainly end up with (and that's not a maybe) a government which will do its best to "conform" to Islamic Law, and so women and minorities are going to end up being abused and mistreated, and very possibly a civil war on top of everything else. So what was the point? Could it have had something to do with the many billions of dollars handed out to defense contractors? Could it be so "W" could, while handing out that money to the defense contractors, end up coming across as a "strong" president? Yeah, we wooped an enemy that we knew we could woop in the first place, except no careful thought was given to the effect it would have on the REAL enemy, Islamic extremist terrorism. The hornets nest has been properly stirred up. Thankyou, "W", I hope it was worth it to you.
Brother Damien, OCCA
Posted by: Brother Damien at August 15, 2005 03:20 PM
Maybe the American people will remember some of this during the mid-term Congressional elections and send some of the right wing packing. A few more moderates, please.
Posted by: richard at August 15, 2005 10:07 PM
Dear XT--
The problem with staying is that we are making things worse, not better. The number of of people coming into the conflict is increasing faster than we are preparing the seedbed of democracy. It is going to be an epic disaster no matter what we do, but leaving will ease the rationale for people radicalizing, which is the greatest danger in this whole affair.
Regards,
PT
Posted by: Public Theologian at August 16, 2005 02:17 PM
Dear Brother Damien--
As I said to XT, the Islamic extremists that are the real problem, as you note, are only having their numbers increased by our presence. Our problem in this situation is that we think only in terms of "more is better." The way that the Union won the Civil war, the way that Eisenhower won WWII, were both rooted in the idea that the other guys could not withstand the onslaught of the continued flooding of men and material into a conflict. But those days are gone and the American people will not allow such a flood of their children or their cash. Yet we cannot get free of the notion that we are and must continue to be the most powerful force. Certainly we could be, if pressed, but our citizens rightly do not feel that we are bing so pressed, 911 notwithsatnding, and are thus unwilling to send the hundreds of thousands more troops over there which are required if we were really serious about stabilizing the country, which would mean a total lock down. Failing that, we have to go.
Regards,
PT
Posted by: Public Theologian at August 16, 2005 02:25 PM
If this becomes I repost, I apologize. My browser is not liking me today.
I wanted to clarify my position a bit. I do not think we should be deluded into thinking that we can simply throw bodies at the situation until it improves. However, I do think that immediately leaving will simply embolden the radicals and lead to even greater bloodshed and terror.
Thankfully, we are not limited to those two options. Rather, we should work through the UN to get more Muslim troops into Iraq - specifically from Egypt and Pakistan - so that it kills the anti-US sentiment and builds on Pan-Arabism and Pan-Muslim ideologies. The US role would be greatly diminished into provide support, command, and control.
The second part of the plan has to be a rebuilding plan. US, European, Russian, and perhaps Chinese funds should be used to help build infrastructure using an open bid process that ensures the lowest bidder/highest quality process is used.
The reality is that there is no simple or quick solution to Iraq. We broke it, we bought it. It's our responsibility. However, that does not mean we cannot use our friends and allies to deliver a better plan than the one that may or may not be in place at this point.
Posted by: Xpatriated Texan at August 16, 2005 08:44 PM
We??? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
I did not wish for Mr Bush to go off starting a war in Iraq. His mind was made up and he went in, guns blazing, like some bad western. Now all of a sudden he is waist deep in his goo and sinking fast. Stay the course? What course? He's been shooting from the hip...and alienating all of our hard earned friendships that took years to win over.
All the money we are spending on the war in Iraq could have gone to Sudan or Niger. The populations in these countries are fighting for our lives.
We bailed in Viet Nam and again in Somolia...what's stopping us now?
I think the American Public just bailed....
Posted by: RS at August 17, 2005 03:15 AM
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLING CINDY SHEEHAN ALL THE NAMES, AND SAY OUR TROOPS ARE PROUD DIEING FOR BUSHS WAR . MAY FIND THEMSLEFS OUT IN THE COLD, AND BEING SEEN FOR WHAT THEY ARE WAR LOVERS , AS LONG AS THE FAR RIGHT AND THE CONCERITIVE PARTY CHILDREN ARE SAFE AT HOME AS MR. BUSH DAUGHTERS ARE.
SOLDIER ARE COMING HOME AND HAVE QUESTIONS LIKE CINDY SHEEHAN, NO WMDS,CHEMICAL WEPOINS, NO NUKS SO NO MUSSROOM CLOUD OVER THE U.S.?
JUST TODATE OUR FELLOW FALLEN 2,079 COMRADES, FOR A WAR THAT HAS CHANGED NAMES EVERY OTHER FEW MONTHS.
I WON'T SAY NO MORE NOW WE LET THE TROOPSWHO WERE THERE ASK YOUAND TELL YOU THE TRUTH>
Posted by: GRANDPAPETE at August 17, 2005 05:24 AM
PT -
Regarding your previous claim that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism prior to 2003, and that the State Department web site backs you up on this, please refer to:
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm
Of course, I had already referred you to : www.husseinandterror.com
Posted by: KSM at August 20, 2005 03:38 AM
Well-said, GrandpaPete. I could not agree with you more.
Posted by: christianleftie at August 21, 2005 03:15 AM
