MysteriousFaith

News Flash: Iraqi War Will Be Hard Work

President Bush in the first debate: “In Iraq, no doubt about it, it’s tough. It’s hard work. It’s incredibly hard. It’s - and it’s hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it’s necessary work. We’re making progress. It is hard work.” Pick your metaphor: Neo in the Matrix having to choose the blue pill or the red pill, or Alice and the rabbit hole, President Bush needs a hard reality check. Hiding behind the obvious may work for the election, but it isn’t going to work in resolving the complexities arising in the Middle East due to our handling of the Iraqi War.

I genuinely appreciated Andrew Sullivan’s commentary on the first debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry. Sullivan is, as many will remember, a supporter of our invasion of Iraq. His differences with the Bush administration have become more difficult as the situation in Iraq has become much more problematic, without an appropriate acknowledgement of the situation from the administration. Sullivan now finds himself in a small but growing group of conservatives who believe the current handling of the occupation on the part of the Bush administration is incompetent. Senator Lugar, that staid gentleman of the US Senate said two weeks ago that the handling of the situation in Iraq is incompetent. Any time someone from the opposing political party (yes, my conservative friends, this is us liberals’ Zell Miller moment) publicly disagrees with their party’s leadership, those from the opposition make too much of it, taking an important observation and insight into the Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraqi war and distilling it down into more of the shrill harping between parties that has so disenfranchised American voters. After watching the first debate, I am increasingly curious as to what has to happen for Bush supporters to at the very least, ask their leaders to more clearly define the objectives and plans for accomplishing those objectives in Iraq. It is the height of stupidity and arrogance to say that no such recalculation should be taking place, an assertion by the way that President Bush explicitly stated in the first debate.

As much as I wish we would have a meaningful discussion about the fear that drove us to too quickly get behind the administration in its Iraqi invasion, that day has passed. It is, however, the right time to question whether or not the man who we hired to manage the country should get rehired. It is unfortunate that the candidate pool includes only Senator Kerry, a man who struggles to rise above the politics of the day and speak clearly with a record of conviction behind him, being unfortunately unable to be clearly the clarion call that America so desperately needs in this, its moment of profound confusion.

At Least He’s certain He’s certain

Among Bush supporters, his clarity, consistency, predictability and unwavering discipline to follow a plan are important reasons they support him; agreement due to steadfastness as opposed to rightness if you will. But opponents such as myself see in Bush’s certainty something much more complex and to be frank, something much more sinister. President Bush, by leading with the argument that his policy of certainty is critical to being successful, positions himself into a role where he does not have to explain his positions. If we are debating the rightness of the war in Iraq, and Bush can successfully position the discussion to be about certainty as opposed to rightness, the cards will play in his favor. His handlers’ vociferous claims that his consistency is critical to differentiating between him and Senator Kerry do so masking what is an obvious issue for others such as me: Bush’s “certainty” masks his inability to communicate complexity, and to debate the positions he has taken. In the first debate it was notable that his defense of his administration circled around “certainty” and less the issues themselves.

I think Kerry said it well when he challenged Bush’s sense of absoluteness in his argument: “But this issue of certainty. It’s one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. It’s another to be certain and right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right. What I worry about with the president is that he’s not acknowledging what’s on the ground, he’s not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, and he’s not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues. And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.”

Sending Mixed Messages

President Bush: “You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens. And that’s my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his service. But I just know how this world works, and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S. president.”

President Bush: “I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I’m optimistic we’ll achieve - I know we won’t achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we’re not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens.”

I tend to calibrate my thoughts, as do most of us, against our personal experience. For me, Bush’s comment doesn’t add up. You win when you acknowledge and deal with reality, even when the reality is difficult. Bush’s use of the words “mixed signals” is disingenuous at best. From my point of view, he has no business whatsoever of saying that Senator Kerry is guilty of mixed signals. What type of mixed message is President Bush sending? The Green Zone, the most heavily fortified area in Baghdad, is coming under regular attack. The Pentagon admitted two weeks ago that we have lost control of many Iraqi cities entirely, areas that have been labeled “no-go” areas by the US military. Bush’s mixed message is more dangerous than anything Kerry has sent a “mixed message” over, and it is dangerous to the very people he claims to protect. We need honesty, candor and a good plan from our Commander in Chief, a title he so proudly hides behind. We are not going to be prepared for the difficulty of the road ahead if we are being disingenuous as to what is happening within Iraq. That mixed message is wholly President Bush’s fault.

Losing control of Iraq and pretending “more of the same” will be a sufficient response is ridiculous. Bush said earlier again that “what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm’s way, ‘wrong war, wrong place, wrong time’? Not a message a commander in chief gives …” Yes, President Bush, that is precisely the answer a commander in chief gives if he needs to change direction, develop new policy, or address hard questions that need new answers. Bush can say all day long that I am right because I am commander in chief and because I am commander in chief I can’t be questioned, but that doesn’t make him right, and it shows a profound misunderstanding about the role the debates were to play. Bush’s words, not just his impish body language, betray a worldview that centers on others not having the right to question his decisions; a lovely perspective from the worlds most powerful man.

Disagreeing Is Democracy in Action

President Bush said during this debate that “… if I were ever to say, ‘This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place,’ the troops would wonder, how can I follow this guy?” I wonder as I ponder this comment of his, when we do admit we made a mistake? Here we see one of the obligations of the citizens in a democracy - to tell the administration clearly that a particular action was wrong. I think we can also see in President Bush’s answer something more troubling - the reality that President Bush can not afford to be wrong. Out the window goes rational analysis of the situation, of disagreement whose objective is to solve the problem Iraq presents and in the window goes the Pollyannaish parroting that the situation in Iraq is fine, we just need to keep going forward.

In evaluating Bush’s comments I think he repeatedly betrays a profound value judgment that Americans need to be wary of, specifically his willingness to make democratic reform secondary to safeguarding the world from terror. Bush’s response to Jim Lehrer’s question about Vladimir Putin’s handling of democratic reforms in Russia is telling. Lehrer asked President Bush if he had concerns about what Putin was doing in the name of anti-terrorism. Bush’s response fascinates me. He says several things of note. First, that Putin’s consolidate of democratic reform is not OK. Bush is right to make that stand. But immediately after making the point that these reforms is wrong, President Bush goes on to say something quite insightful as to his world view: “I mean, he’s also a strong ally in the war on terror.” The linkage is not insignificant - taking away democratic reforms is apparently wrong, but keep in mind, he’s fighting terrorists also. That is chilling. The political calculus that has evolved is that “certain” freedoms are OK to give up, as long as we do so in the name of “safety.” Orwell rolls over in his grave yet again.

You see Bush’s view of political power again in his comments about Kerry’s criticism about Allawi: “You can’t change the dynamics on the ground if you’ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq.” Again we see that in Bush’s mind criticism of a person in political power is inconsistent with meaningful change. Apparently “democracy in action” doesn’t mean you can criticize politicians in Iraq or in the United States. These little slips of the tongue reveal a lot about the administrations view of power.

Supporters of Bush should also keep in mind that Putin is a man that after Bush’s first meeting with him; Bush stated he looked into his soul and said he (Putin) was a man he could work with. This is the same Putin that disappeared his opponent in the Russian presidential election, has consolidated the Russian free media, and centralized portions of Russian government in ways that significantly shift any reasonable balance of power.

The Debates We Should Be Having

Americans tune in to the debates in part to be informed, and in part to be casually entertained. But we don’t tune in with the hopes of hearing a real debate. What a ridiculous format for the most important position in the land to be evaluated! This was a mutual exchange of press releases, never affording real debating between the two candidates. I would have loved to see President Bush in a conventional debate with Senator Kerry. I think Bush’s impishness and sense of autocratic superiority would have come out very quickly as his inability to defend himself factually increased. But most damaging of all, the debates mask a meaningful discussion that Americans need to be having.

First, what is the right engagement with the world that will increase our likelihood of dealing with terrorists? People who hate us can not be reasoned with, and it is unreasonable to think that we can adopt new policies and terrorists will go away. What we can do is seriously investigate the policies of our government that create in moderate Muslim societies a higher tolerance for violence. If we were to investigate how we are perceived in the Muslim world (in fact, in most of the world frankly), we would find that the average Muslim hates terrorists as much as we do. They fear living with people of such violence, for they can see how the Taliban treats its own people as easily as we can. But they also recognize the over-reaching of US foreign policy, and feel strongly that America needs to be taught a lesson. Our policies need to be constantly evaluated within the context of what will allow good and decent members of moderate Muslim countries and governments to resist the temptations of looking the other way when terrorists use their home, their religion and their countries as safe havens.

Second, what is the best way of dealing with obvious international atrocities, genocide, and evil? America stands at what I believe is a momentous point in time. We are willing to act unilaterally in the name of democracy, using as a part of our motivation the ineptitude and inability of agencies like the UN to advocate meaningful democratic change. But such an attitude on our parts masks our own reticence to be held accountable to the standards of international law and international politics. This is a position that only the powerful and the despotic regimes of history have taken. We are certainly not despotic, but we are powerful; believing our way is always the right way. And perhaps we are right - for ourselves. But for others, who see the darker side, the more complex issues, and the more entangled risks posed by American foreign policy, our actions do little to ensure meaningful international order. It is necessary now for American to propose a vision of world governance, of international law. These are meaningful systems of accountability, no more so than the international standards of accounting and corporate governance we so strongly advocate in the name of capitalism. We should be as strong in our advocacy of similar democratic and human rights.

Third, what do we need to be doing domestically to ensure our way of life continues? Let’s get beyond discussions only about safety and security, let’s start talking about whether or not our governmental policies are ensuring that important social obligations the government has to its citizens will continue to be fiscally sound. Let’s have some meaningful discussion and leadership over the contentious social and cultural issues that are so easily dividing our country.

Augustine famously said that “on the essentials unity, on the non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” What binds Americans together is more than what divides us. But what divides us now is as much our politics as it is our political forums. We owe it to ourselves to not just be involved, but to be educated. It is in the process of reasoned discourse that we can together discover what we hold in common and how we can come together to build meaningful consensus for tomorrow.

previous post: September 2004 Bookshelf
next post: DVD Review: The Fog of War

• Posted in Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• October 12, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website