Iraq Reality vs. President Bush
Posted December 1, 2006 on 6:34 pm | In the category Iran, Iraq, Press, U.S. Foreign Policy | by JeffIn an earlier posting to this blog the point was made that as a lameduck president George W. Bush has nothing to lose other than whatever shreds of dignity might cling to him. We now await the Baker-Hamilton report which is widely reported to include recommendations for phased withdrawal of American troops as well as direct negotiations with Iran and Syria. But we are in the Bush universe and President Bush will commit to neither while his pal Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, says he is ready for both and Iraqi President Talabani has just concluded a visit to Iran where he received a commitment of $1billion for reconstruction.
The only point here is that we have a president who simply refuses to recognize reality. Indeed, he is reminiscent of President Nixon when he went bonkers in the aftermath of Watergate. So the danger is real that as leader of the free world, Bush will stay the course in Iraq, bomb Iran and ignore Syria while Lebanon burns.
Since a strike at North Korea’s nuclear sites would risk the death of hundreds of thousands of South Koreans Bush is unlikely to act there – but he is equally unlikely to open direct one-on-one negotiations without getting some concessions in advance – which is not really negotiating at all.
Some, including most of the press, ignore the fact that leaders have psychologies and that these can drive actions. Stubborn commitment to failed policies, an unwillingness to recognize or address reality, an inability to hear differing points of view, a refusal to admit mistakes – these are all characteristics of a person we would not trust with a business let alone an entire nation.
3 Comments3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
You\’re right, Jeff, if I understand you to be saying that a lame duck President can be a dangerous beast. There are reasons–psychological and circumstantial–that this one is especially dangerous.
=
The circumstance and timing of the mid term elections results means Bush faces a dis-unified–fractious on concept and splintered by ambition–congressional opposition. Many congressional democrats are contending for the presidential nomination and each is looking to differentiate his/her position. Agreement on policy is not their intention nor in their interest. Further, there are compelling and mutually negating arguments about Iraq troop levels. There is no question that post-major combat Iraq is disastrous as a result of too few troops and so a reduction in levels is not a self-evident solution. Reducing US troops, however, as a means of forcing Iraqi self-sufficiency is an attractive concept. Neither argument is an intellectual \”slam dunk\” with a population that historically has been reluctant to substitute their judgment for their president\’s. So because of policy and personal divisions over Iraq, Congress is not going to materially influence Bush\’s policies during the twilight of his term. Congress will be no more than an annoyance and leaves him a relatively free hand.
=
Bush is also unconstrained by a desire to advance a successor. He\’s not got a protege he wants to protect by moderating his instincts. He could comfortably conclude that his legacy lies best in actions that encumber the maneuverability of his successor. His reach into the future is achievable by committing the country to a course the next president will not be able to reverse. For example LBJ was unable to find a way out of JFK\’s Vietnam and Nixon took 6 years to get out of LBJs Vietnam. (And Vietnam was a war each wanted to get out of where as Bush doesn\’t want out of his 2 generation war against Islamo fascists).
=
More importantly, Bush is not the sort of politician we are used to understanding. In short he\’s the least other directed super-powerful person we may ever have put into office. He doesn\’t care what you think of him. Maybe that\’s part of what you mean by urging us to consider that \”leaders have psychologies\”.
=
He is a born again recovering alcoholic. His life\’s lesson is that salvation is won by daily rededication to deferred gratification. That separates him from most of our other political figures.
=
Bush would probably differ with us on what constitutes \”stubborn commitment\” and whether that is a virtue or a vice. The same sort of disconnect probably applies to his \”unwillingness to recognize or address reality.\” In those terms he may easily see himself as a sort of Bobby Kennedy who asked us not to accept the world as it is but to realize the vision of what it could be.
=
I am not arguing that Bush isn\’t crazy and dangerous. In fact I am convinced he is very dangerous. I am just arguing that it is better for us to understand what we are facing. We still may not be able to save the day but at least we will be better able to understand what to expect. Cold comfort I admit.
Comment by Kiwi — December 2, 2006 #
Cold comfort indeed, Kiwi. There has been a certain amount of discussion of Bush as a \”dry-drunk\” and what that might mean for his psychology. While some of that discussion is interesting to me in a self-serving, schadenfreude kind of way, to me it is mostly only relevant in the abstract. My real concern is with the concrete world – the one in which Bush’s behaviors play out over time. And there I think we raise the proper alarms.
Like you I have little optimism that a new Congress will solve the foreign policy problems facing the U.S. It is not their historic role to do so and they would need spine replacement surgery to develop enough influence to make a difference.
Robert Kennedy’s call for a new world was mythical in nature and did not include – as far as I remember – bombing the shit out of the world to make it a better place. But grant the point – he, like Bush, expressed belief in the power to change the world for the better. We do not know what Kennedy would have done to move toward that mythical world – but we sure as hell know what Bush has done and we are now stuck with the mess we made with – as he admits – no graceful way out. I do think that it needs to remembered that he got us into this through lies and deceptions and that the fact that we are now stuck is a direct result of whatever particular psychology drove him to do something so manifestly dishonest.
The comparison with Johnson’s and Nixon’s Vietnam “problem” is as interesting for its difference as for its similarities. In addition to the one you identify – that they wanted out and he does not; there is the ownership issue – this is Bush’s war – he started it; they inherited Vietnam. Bush’s successor(s) will inherit Iraq along with whatever he does – or does not do – with Iran and North Korea.
As for what to do next – that is, alas, his job as president to determine. It will not be so easy for him to sell a bad bill of goods to a skeptical country but that may be – as you suggest – of no matter to him. He is our leader, our decider, our educator and he takes those roles seriously. Actually seems to believe in them. The next time he begins to explain one of his disasters with, “The American people need to understand…”, we all best run for cover.
Comment by Jeff — December 3, 2006 #
Skippy’s Evil Twin (can you have a doppelganger of a nitwit?) is nothing more than a self-righteous, self-centered, legacy-educated, draft-dodging, spoiled brat. There, dissect that. I know, I know, personality bashing is not very constructive – but I’m just trying to help us all understand what we’re dealing with. What is key -what he has going for him – is his Title. He is the President and Commander-in-Chief of what probably still is the most formible Nation on earth. That is his hook. That is the cause for the failure of others to confront this cowboy. If you’ve ever been a part of, or observed a hierarchy up close, you know that the bidding of those on the upper rungs is done with few or no questions asked – regardless of the value of the idea and regardless of cost. The “honeymoons” of the big guys can last almost indefinitely. That is what has happened here. The Dude is Pres-i-dent of the fucking United States – he is the law! And he is, as Kiwi says, still dangerous.
Comment by John — December 4, 2006 #