Responsiblity without regret
Today, President Bush gave his last scheduled speech on the subject of Iraq. The Washington Post reports in its story on the speech, Bush Defends Decision to Go to War in Iraq, that the President also took responsibility for the faulty intelligence that led us to war.
Said the President, “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.” Then he added that we must stay in Iraq “until victory is achieved.” Why?
“…because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator,” Bush said. “It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.”
I would make a couple points about the President’s speech. First, it will be reported as an “admission of responsibility,” almost an apology on the part of the President.
Yet just the other day, during the impromptu question/answer period following his second speech on Iraq, the President said, “And so we gave Saddam Hussein the chance to disclose or disarm, and he refused. And I made a tough decision. And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again.”
“And knowing what I know today, I’d make the decision again.”
My question is, can one take responsibility for wrong information that led to an action, but not regret the action that one took? This is a philosophical, an ethical question.
Think of it this way [this is purely hypothetical]: my son Brendan fights another kid, Mark, at school. I ask him why? He says, “Drew told me that Mark was going to beat me up, so I beat him up first.”
Through a circuitous route, my son learns that Mark never said what Drew told Brendan he said. I ask Brendan if he regrets his decision, and he responds, “I take responsibility for the bad information Drew passed to me. But Mark was a bully anyway, so he got what he deserved and I’d do it again.”
Responsibility without regret means nothing.
Now I want to write quickly of something else the President said, that we would stay in Iraq “until victory is achieved.”
Democrats like Harry Reid are wrong to stick with their tactic of attacking the supposed lack of a plan for victory. The President has presented a plan for victory in Iraq. Agree with it or disagree with it, it’s still a plan. Democrats have a plan, too. They call it redeployment.
What the President has not demonstrated yet is what victory—his favorite word—will look like. We often hear how “victory” in the war on terror will not be represented by a signing of a cease fire on the deck of a battleship or in a French rail car, meaning that this war isn’t like World Wars I and II, and so it won’t end like them, either. Much the same has been said about Iraq. It is precisely this vagueness, this open-endedness to the conflict, that disturbs me most about Iraq and the War on Terror generally. It reminds me too much of the war depicted in Orwell’s 1984, a war against a shadowy enemy, a war that never ends.
What will victory look like in Iraq? Here the President comes up short. On the one hand, he cannot give us measurable indicators of what victory will be like, because there is too great a chance of not meeting those goals. If he says, for example, that victory will be marked by an end to the violent insurgency…well, he sets himself up for disappointment and a backlash among disgruntled Americans.
At his most candid, the President says that victory in Iraq will be had when the democratically-elected government of Iraq can defend itself. That’s a pretty vague definition of victory. How should we define “democracy” in Iraq? A democracy can be a tyranny, and a tyranny can certainly defend itself. So if the democratically-elected Shi’ites institute a pogrom against the Sunnis, suppressing the insurgency to the point that America can leave Iraq, is that victory?
By defining victory in such a vague way, the President allows himself plenty of latitude to declare victory whenever politics dictates. My own prediction is that no matter the situation in Iraq, we will see troops coming home en masse by November 2006. And that’s fine by me. I’ve always ascribed to the Murtha 6 to 12 month redeployment plan anyway.
However, it will be humorous to see the way the President spins his bringing the troops home basically on the timetable of the Democrats.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Good post. I particularly appreciate your Brendan/Drew/Mark scenario for highlighting the essential problem with Bush’s logic so clearly.
Comment by Dawn — Wednesday, 14 December 2005 @ 5:08 pm
I’m not sure you can actually say what victory, in Iraq, or the broader war on terror will look like, because it is so different from any war we’ve ever fought.
His plan does lay out the basic guidelines for deciding we are done there, a security force capable of defending the country both internally and on it’s borders. An economic system that is working, and a political system that is stable.
As valid a question would be at the end of World War II how did we know the Marshall Plan was complete and Europe rebuilt? We didn’t, we didn’t even set actually guide posts for it to be done. It was very broad in aspect. But over time we were able to figure out that it had run it’s course, and the countries it was used to help were self sufficient. Iraq, I imagine will be much the same way. At some point they’ll say, hey, we really don’t need you as much, why not back out more of the troops.
BTW, thanks for stopping by my blog today, you made some good points and also have a good blog.
Comment by Crazy Politico — Wednesday, 14 December 2005 @ 5:29 pm
I am going to stick by my prediction that we’ll see a large draw down or redeployment of troops within six months to a year. If I’m wrong, you all feel free to poke fun at me. I can take it.
Comment by Matthew — Wednesday, 14 December 2005 @ 7:42 pm
Excellent question, one voiced and seconded by me also. Bush appears to be sticking to his agenda, using what ever means he needs to enforce it.
You know, if the US is winning the war, and the terrorists are so thoroughly beaten, then good, let all the troops go home!
Comment by AKauffman — Wednesday, 14 December 2005 @ 10:43 pm
Akauffman, while the president has said we are winning the war, he’s never said they are thoroughly beaten.
One way to look at the war is to think of it as a mistake, and wonder what we should do to rectify it. Then think of other things that are mistakes, and use the same logic on them.
For instance, one group of folks looks at Iraq as a mistake, and that we should leave immediately, not rectifying it.
Now, think of my car. I just got a recall notice for the seat sensor that disables the passenger airbag. Using the Iraq logic, Hyundai should send me a letter saying, sorry, we screwed up. And that would be it. They’ve admitted their mistake, what more is necessary?
Now, what Hyundai has actually done is sent me a letter admitting there is a problem, made an appointment, and fixed my car so the sensor works, though in a different way.
That is the equivelant of what we are doing in Iraq, whether it was a mistake or not, we broke it. Now, we are fixing it, and decided not to back out until it works. It will work differently than before we arrived, yes, the president wants it to work on it’s own before we leave.
Comment by Crazy Politico — Thursday, 15 December 2005 @ 8:17 pm
I do think the pressure to withdraw is going to intensify, now that these elections have gone so well. I, for one, feel more than ever that it’s time to turn this over to the Iraqis. A six to twelve month withdraw plan is not a precipitous withdraw.
On the subject of “fixing” Iraq, I’m not sure what that means anymore. Americans don’t realize it, but “fixing” Iraq is really out of our hands. Only the Iraqis can fix Irag, and they may not fix it so that it’s an American-friendly regime.
I was pleased to see the voter turnout in Iraq yesterday, but the queston that kept epstering me all day was, “Do we know really why these people are so happy?” Maybe they were happy because they were going to the polls to elect a Shi’ia-dominated, Iran-friendly theocratic government. In our pleasure at the Iraqi’s excitement, we might be underestimating how democracy can work against American interests. On the whole, Iraq is out of our hands whether we stay or go. No matter how long we stay, we may just be staving off an inevitable downward turn in Iraq affairs. Or everything may turn out as rosy as Cheney predicted. I’m a pessimist, however, and not inclined to trust this administration’s judgement on anything.
Comment by Matthew — Friday, 16 December 2005 @ 12:46 pm
You are right, at this point, a lot of the rest of the fixing is in their hands. However, they freely admit they aren’t ready to take over security yet, which is why we still have folks there.
As for what are they happy about. Ballots with more choices than “Saddam” and “Lose a Family Member” are the big thing.
Check out Iraq The Model (in my blogroll) and some of the other Iraqi blogs he’s linked to. Read back over the last week or so. What they are happy about is that they have a choice in the elections now. The idea that their votes matter, not to show the UN Saddam is a “democratic leader”, which was a joke, but to decide their destiny.
Iraqipundit has a great write up on a conversation with a BBC journalist about it. It’s in my news and stuff post from Wednesday.
Comment by Crazy Politico — Friday, 16 December 2005 @ 4:00 pm