State of Our Disunion
In his State of the Union speech last night, on the subject of Iraq the President remarked that “We [meaning himself and the American public] went into this largely united — in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work.”
Presidents have to remain ever the optimist, always seeing the glass half-full rather than half-empty; but saying that “we” were “largely united” on the subject of Iraq seems a bit beyond the realm of optimism, bordering on delusional thinking.
That said, I remain willing to give the President’s plan a chance to work. It has irritated me to see many of the same Democrats and Republicans resist a rise in troop levels, who not long ago were complaining about how the President didn’t send enough troops to Iraq initially. I think that among the pols in the Senate and House, there is simply an overriding belief that the war is lost, and that they should distance themselves from the disaster as quickly as possible.
They may be right. In fact, I have very little hope that the “surge” in Iraq can work. Yet I think it ought to be tried, for the Iraqis’ sake. I have always tried to look at the aftermath of our invasion in terms of what is best for the Iraqis. American losses in Iraq are grievous, but hardly as significant as what Iraqis have lost. Perhaps I am taking an overly paternalistic view, but I believe in making right what we have done wrong, if at all possible.
Monday night, I listened to the Podcast of President Bush’s 60 Minutes interview with Scott Pelley. Ever since the election, there has been much chatter about a “chastened” or “humbled” President Bush. I thought I detected a new tone, as well, until I heard the President in this interview.
One of the most fascinating and revealing question/answers comes near the beginning of the interview:
PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?
BUSH: That we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?
PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.
BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we’ve endured great sacrifice to help them. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.
PELLEY: Americans wonder whether . . .
BUSH: Yeah, they wonder whether or not the Iraqis are willing to do hard work necessary to get this democratic experience to survive. That’s what they want.
The emphasis above is mine. “I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude…”
Yeah, sounds like a man who has been humbled.
The President sounded almost shocked by the question. It was as if the thought had never occurred to him. Apologize? Me, President Bush, apologize for the suffering of the Iraqi people?
One of the most disturbing aspects of the disaster in Iraq is how quickly Americans are coming together to blame the Iraqis. We can’t be united to defend them, but we can sure be united in blaming them.
Democrats, as well as Republicans, are already testing their rhetoric of blame, in preparation for a possible, if not eventual, shameful withdraw from Iraq. Implied in the President’s words above, and in much of the hot air expelled yesterday in General Petraeus’ Congressional testimony, is the certainty that sole responsibility for the disaster of this war rests on the shoulders of the Iraqis.
Disputing Petraeus’ suggestion that Senate resolutions expressing opposition to the President give aid and comfort to the enemy, Hillary Clinton went so far as to say that the purpose of opposition to the President was to “send a message to the Iraqis” that American patience is wearing thin.
Unfortunately, we are in a war that is, indeed, largely dependent on whether the Iraqis get their act together. I understand the Clinton point of view. But to lose patience with a people we have immeasurably harmed because they cannot repair the damage we did fast enough to suit us…well, it’s just a little arrogant. Don’t you think, Mrs. Clinton?
One thing I always used to like about Republicans was their prudence in regard to war-making. Democrats were always the ones who got us into unwinnable wars. Korea, Vietnam…Democrat wars. Democrats were the ones who flubbed relatively simple military operations, such as Operation Eagle Claw (the attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran) and Somalia.
Now, it seems, the tables are turned. Republicans are the ones who get us involved in wars in which victory depends on the will of a much weaker ally. Who would have thought, twenty years ago, that we would be in such a situation under a supposedly conservative President?
It’s impossible to know what is right in this situation. The President has made his best guess as to how to try to solve the problem. Unfortunately for the Iraqis, it is, as so many have said over the past weeks, the “last chance” to get it right. There will not be any will left, if this plan fails. I say that is unfortunate because I believe it almost inevitable that, despite the President’s words to the contrary, the Iraqi people probably are going to end up abandoned to the wolves at their door, much as the Vietnamese people were abandoned by Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
Do the consequences of a Vietnam-like withdraw from Iraq extend beyond the suffering of the Iraqi people? The President wants us to believe so. Indeed, much as with Vietnam, without the belief that “we are fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them at home,” whether “them” are communists or terrorists, the war is probably unsustainable from either a moral or a purely selfish point of view.
Just as Vietnam was waged on the theory of the Domino Effect, so the war in Iraq is waged on the theory that if Iraq falls, so falls the Middle East. To quote the President from last night:
If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country — and, in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.
When we “stepped back” from Saigon, the nation did indeed fall to the communists, much to the suffering of the Vietnamese people. America remained relatively unaffected by that retreat, though one could say the psychological consequences here at home were as bad as if the rest of Southeast Asia had fallen to Communism, as predicted.
The question is, do we buy this argument any longer that the terrorists are so much more evil and more powerful than the Communists–some conservatives have even said they are worse than the Nazis–that a retreat from Iraq would provide a haven for terrorism and make us less safe here at home?
Frankly, I am not buying the domino theory of terrorism, any longer. Iraq is already a haven and a training ground for terrorists, and we made it so. Anyone who thinks that the current instability in Iraq somehow makes Americans safer is a fool. Could Iraq be more unstable? Yes. Would the danger to Americans therefore increase, after a withdraw? I don’t think so. We are already in grave danger.
There was a report in the Los Angeles Times just yesterday that Al Qaeda in Iraq has “considered trying to use student visas to get a dozen or more operatives into the United States to launch an attack.” So much for fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them at home.
I never believed that fanciful myth about Iraq. it was nothing more than a convenient, but illogical, post-hoc excuse for an occupation gone bad. Now the birds of the President’s fancy are coming home to roost. Better grab a shovel, because the bird crap is going to get even deeper before this is all over.
11 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>
Well written, as usual. I am surprised to see you suggest that we were not largely united when we went into this war. That isn’t my recollection, but I was younger and much less informed than I am now - I was also in the military. Do you have some facts to support that, or what is that statement based on? (Just in case there is any doubt, I am asking in all seriousness as someone who is trying to better understand the situation our country is now in).
I’d really like your thoughts on an article I read some months ago. Here’s a link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_only_issue_this_election_d.html
It is, of course, on the same topic lines - but a drastically different point of view. I don’t expect you to agree, I just want to know what you think of it.
Comment by Step — Wednesday, 24 January 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Just to clarify, I was referring only to the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. I agree that we were largely unified in the period between 9/11/2001 and the cessation of the war in Afghanistan.
As for facts to support my belief that we were not unified on the war in Iraq, I would simply refer you to this Wikipedia article: Protests Against the Iraq War. It is true that a majority of Senators and Congressmen supported the war initially, but in his speech quoted above, the President was referring specifically to the American people, not Congress.
I guess it’s all in how one defines “unity.” But to my mind, the fact that it took so long to launch the war, due to the necessity of proving justification, this in itself proves division. If America was at that time united to wage war on Iraq, the Administration could have launched the war in 2002, when it first began discussing it. No, it was April 2003 before enough support could be garnered to go ahead. I still don’t think, even then, that the country was sufficiently behind the war. That’s been part of the problem all along: none of the rationales or justification for the war have proven true and an already weak base of support has crumpled.
I will take a look at the Orson Scott Card article and let you know what I think. I may even blog a response.
Comment by greypilgrim — Wednesday, 24 January 2007 @ 1:56 pm
One more Wikipedia article: American Popular Opinion on Invasion of Iraq.
According to polls, support varied throughout early 2003. For example, support was on the decline in January 2003, but rose when Powell made his U.N. speech. The following passage is particularly relevant, since it suggests Americans were not so gung ho, but wanted more evidence of Saddam’s WMD program:
“A consistent pattern in the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion was that higher percentages of the population supported the impending war in polls that offered only two options (for or against) than in polls that broke down support into three or more options given (distinguishing unconditional support for the war, opposition to the war even if weapons inspectors do their job, and support if and only if inspection crews are allowed time to investigate first).”
Comment by greypilgrim — Wednesday, 24 January 2007 @ 2:22 pm
thanks, I’ll read through them tonight.
Comment by Step — Wednesday, 24 January 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Step, I think you have lured me into a trap constructed from my own rhetoric
I should not have phrased my argument in terms of an either/or proposition. Either we were united, or we were divided. Because phrased that way, I lose the debate.
If unity is defined as having a majority at the polls, or having congressional approval for war, then I have to concede that Bush had “unity” in 2003. He had that all the way through the war.
As with the war itself, the issue is not black and white, however. Clearly there was a significant number of Americans who were wary about the war from the beginning; some outright opposed the war. Others just wanted to give weapons inspectors more time to work, as reflected in polls that gave people more than the two options, invade or don’t invade.
Also, when you consider that at the time of the invasion, a majority of Americans thought that Saddam was somehow complicit in 9/11, the picture grows even more complex. What good is “unity” anyway if it is founded on a falsehood?
We can all be united in our belief that the world is flat, but unity of belief does not make it so.
I am conceding that the majority of Americans supported war with Iraq in March/April 2003. However, to my mind, this is clearly a case where the minority got it right. We should have been content with making Afghanistan a model for democracy in the Muslim world.
Comment by greypilgrim — Wednesday, 24 January 2007 @ 4:47 pm
After reading the Wikipedia articles, I find myself . . . very unconvinced. 1. The articles show glints of bias throughout, sometimes in different directions. 2. Lots of statements that are missing citations. In general, Wikipedia is a good place to start, but far from a “trusted reference”, especially on a topic as political as this. 3. I was pleasantly surprised that both write-ups seemed more fact-focused and less biased that I expected. Still, reading the “American Popular Opinions” article just didn’t give enough facts to form a clear picture. I read it twice, once looking for it to support my preposition that there was not popular support, once to support my preposition that there was popular support. Both times, I was able to find enough in there that I could claim my viewpoint was “right”.
Your cherry-picked comment, while one of the better samples, was still right up against statements about how the majority wanted to give UN inspectors more time but believed they wouldn’t find anything even though it was there.
So, thanks for a good place to start. Unfortunately, the articles didn’t challenge my initial belief that support was very high in this country for the war and in support of the president. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t opposition, and in fact I had forgotten but there were a lot of peace marchs. I discounted those at the time for the same reason I do now. (Note I said discount, not disregard - another words regardless of the wisdom of a decision to enter war I always expect some protest, and even feel it is a good thing though I may think the protest is not based on an intelligent evaluation of the world and world events.)
I’ll have to go back through those articles more thoroughly, and follow some of the citations. Won’t have that kind of time in the next few days though.
Comment by Step — Wednesday, 24 January 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Don’t worry about reading those articles. You are right. I concede to you that the polls in early 2003 indicated that a majority of Americans supported war. I was one of them; you can read my blog from the spring of 2003 to get a sense of where I was on the war at that time.
However, I still believe that the majority, including myself, was dead wrong. Popular opinion is ephemeral and mutable; it turns on a dime. The President who is unpopular today can witness a stunning turnaround tomorrow. Nor are polls any way to judge right or wrong, truth or falsehood.
I guess what irked me was the President’s bold statement that “we” were unified was that it assumed some collective guilt–as if he were saying, “This was not my mistake, but our mistake.” My recollection was that there were massive protests against the war. My recollection was that, though I was a supporter, my wife and pretty much all of my friends were not. Unity is a slippery word, and majority opinion is always used as a club to beat those who don’t believe as the majority do.
Comment by greypilgrim — Thursday, 25 January 2007 @ 5:27 am
I’ll agree with you on popular opinion, no doubt about it.
In fact, yesterday I came to the unfortunate conclusion that probably 70% (or more!!) of those in our country (on both sides of the poll) are very uninformed regarding our president and the war on terror, and that their opinion primarily comes from an internal weighted balance of news and their friends’ opinions. This is just my opinion, after discussing with several people and evaluating how my own opinion has been formed and changed in the last 3 years.
My best guess now would be that I wasn’t offended by his claim of unity for the same reasons you are - basically, I still support him (though I have large doubts about certain parts of what has gone on), and I recollect the feeling of unity from that time. You don’t remember us as unified then, and that’s reinforced by how non-unified we are now, and your current opinion.
So was it wrong of him to claim unity in the SOTU, then? I don’t know - quite possibly.
Thanks for not going dark and just not responding. I appreciate your honesty. My favorite thing about this country is how strongly (and how strongly different) we feel, yet we still can work so well with people we blatantly disagree with (not that I’m suggesting that in this case, I’ve just seen a lot of that this week, both at work and in political, religious, and other hot-topic discussions).
Comment by Step — Thursday, 25 January 2007 @ 1:38 pm
I am glad that we can have these discussions and not view each other in oppositional terms.
I just want to clarify, as well, that I do support the “troop surge” plan. I’m not optimistic that it will work, but what else is there, short of withdraw? So I geuss in a way, I do still support the war. I am not calling for withdraw, and in fact I am meditating a post on this “massive” anti-war protest that is supposed to descend on Washington on Saturday. Reading about it in the Washington Post today, I was as disturbed by some of the comments of the liberal supporters of the rally as I am by the arrogance of our elected officials.
Comment by greypilgrim — Thursday, 25 January 2007 @ 2:02 pm
Somehow I missed your earlier comment (about luring you into a trap
). Sorry about that - that’s why my next post looked like I hadn’t read your comment - I hadn’t. 
By the way, I completely made up the “70%” number in my previous comment. Or you could call it an “uneducated guess”.
Comment by Step — Thursday, 25 January 2007 @ 10:00 pm
“I am glad that we can have these discussions and not view each other in oppositional terms.” Me too.
I’m not having such luck on another thread - the blogger seems to take pleasure only in doing whatever he can to frustrate discussion - certainly his perogative, but disappointing of course.
Comment by Step — Friday, 26 January 2007 @ 9:51 pm