In the run-up to the Iraq war, one argument that never gained much traction was that no matter how badly the world needed to see Saddam removed the people in charge simply weren’t up to the job. You didn’t hear it much because it doesn’t call out any particular principle or ideology, and most folks weren’t ready for the competence question yet. Needless to say, things have changed.
Change is putting it mildly, unless you mean ‘sea change.’ The public’s confidence in Bush’s management skill has practically burrowed through the basement floor. Two stories from today’s news give some idea about why. First, once again contracting fraud has made news. As Iraq contracting fraud goes this story hardly measures up to the big dogs, the familiar names who managed to disappear billions-with-a-b, but illustrates once again the freewheeling oversight-free environment in Iraq where people felt free to carry off anything that wasn’t nailed down. Second, Doug Feith, Tommy Franks’s famous “stupidest f-cking man on the face of the Earth,’ will finally get a Pentagon review of his ‘shadow CIA’ intelligence shop, the Office of Special Plans, and their odd use of shady intel.
Neither story will shake the Earth, but both help to show why you trust important jobs to capable people.
Jon H
” will finally get a Pentagon review of his ‘shadow CIA’ intelligence shop, the Office of Special Plans, and their odd use of shady intel.”
I think you misspelled “whitewash”.
Tim F.
Heh. That’s possible as well. I’d prefer if an uninterested party looked into it, but keep in mind that there’s very little love for Feith in the pentagon. Tommy Franks speaks for a whole lot of people.
ppGaz
Well, this answers one big question. Did they lie?
Sure, they lied about knowing what the hell they were doing. They never did, and still don’t. No way to cover that up. No way to put lipstick on it.
“Don’t blame me …. the Democrats agreed with me!” is not going to work as a defense.
I think you are witnessing an implosion.
Sojourner
The reality is that 9/11 simply delayed the inevitable recognition by the public that this administration is both profoundly incompetent and profoundly deceitful.
The American people have supported this administration solely on the basis of faith. Once that faith is gone, it’s going to be really, really hard to get it back.
Jorge
Actually, the incompetence argument was and is one of my favorite arguments against this war. But I don’t just stop it at the Bush administration. I look at all of neocons philosophy that way.
Neocons is the marriage of the worst liberal instinct – “the US government can and is morally bound to solve all of your problems” with the worst Hawkish instinct – “The US military can and should police the entire world.” The result is the philosophy that the US government can and is morally bound to solve the problems of the entire world by deploying the US military. This philosophy mixes naiveté with arrogance and throws in blind faith for good measure. If that isn’t a recipe for disaster then I don’t know what is?
Steve
Hey, that’s an extremely good point, Jorge.
Lines
Jorge is on a roll today, I noticed. Thanks Jorge, you’ve elevated the discourse so that I don’t feel obligated to post “turning the corner” snarks or “Michael Moore is fat”.
ppGaz
You just described the real reason for this war, in a nutshell. Stir, and mix with a dollop of pigheadedness and a tablespoon of arrogance, and there you go.
Putting themselves above the people, above the lessons of history (see: Britain, Mesopotamia), above due diligence and responsible caution and restraint, and above the advice they were getting inside their own Cabinet, they blundered ahead, and have spent the last three years in a circus of willful self-justification and prevarication.
May they rot in hell forever.
Jorge
Thank you guys.
Jon H
Tim writes: ” keep in mind that there’s very little love for Feith in the pentagon. ”
Perhaps, but the guys running the investigation would be Rumsfeld’s civilian tools, not the military men.
If said tools want their comfy sinecure at AEI and Heritage, they’re going to give Rumsfeld the answers he wants.
Jon H
“Actually, the incompetence argument was and is one of my favorite arguments against this war. But I don’t just stop it at the Bush administration. I look at all of neocons philosophy that way.”
Yeah, I pretty much look at anything the Bush administration does that way.
Are they competent to enact the policy successfully?
Are they telling the truth?
Do they have ulterior motives? ie, is the proposed policy intended to serve its described purpose, or is it set up to fail, in order to serve a different purpose? For example, the suspicions that No Child Left Behind is actually not set up so that schools improve, but rather so that most schools eventually fail, aiding calls for vouchers.
OCSteve
Dems including senior leadership saying outrageous things day after day, MSM is happy to help pound the public with the half-truths and even outright lies day after day.
Now take a poll with leading questions framed to get the answer you want and a biased sample.
Now point to the poll as ‘evidence’ of your position.
The sad part is it got such a foothold because the administration took the high road for far too long before fighting back.
I’m not saying there have not been mistakes made, there have been plenty. But everything we hear today from arm-chair generals with perfect hindsight is ridiculous. Exactly who do you feel would have been competent to prosecute a ground war in the ME? Even the bunch from GW1 (assuming you think they did OK) would not have been up to speed on today’s tactics etc. You push your people out and call up some folks out of retirement to take charge because they were involved in the last war more than a decade ago?
In terms of rebuilding – is there someone still alive who has experience administering the Marshal Plan? I’m quite certain there was plenty of corruption going on then too. Anytime there is a lot of money on the table it’s going to attract some scum.
So exactly who would have been more competent and capable? This is just more of the tired ‘anyone but Bush’ meme.
ppGaz
The recent call for “reform” of Social Security reads like a script from Cato Institute literature of 20+ years ago, aimed at dismantling, not “saving”, social security.
Next to the war on Iraq, the biggest ulterior motive in the history of modern politics. And the shitheads still to this day think maybe they can pull it off!
ppGaz
Q: Do you think President Bush misled the public during the run up to the Iraq war?
Yes / No / Not sure
Q: Do you believe that the war in Iraq is making America safer from terrorists?
Yes / No / Not sure
Yes, that’s pretty devious, alright.
Bastards!!
Krista
Today is We Heart Jorge Day.
srv
The answer isn’t that Billary/Gore/M. Moore could have done a better job, the answer is that they wouldn’t have gotten us here in the first place.
Given that we’re stuck there, anyone would be better than Bush. Bush is completely and utterly incapable of acccepting accountability or adapting. Since he won’t grow up, Congresscritters, the Joint Chiefs and the media will have to do the job of political extraction.
RSA
That’s funny, I can’t think of any mistakes that have been made. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this comment, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet.
ppGaz
Those four people sitting accross from you on the bus?
Them.
Mac Buckets
That makes sense, if you also think that Clinton, Bush41, and Reagan were also “neocons.” Otherwise, it’s just more anti-historical rhetoric against a label you don’t like. It sounds good to the trained seals, though.
By the way, I would argue that “the worst Hawkish instinct” is not “We will help you,” but “We will crush you!”
Tim F.
I think that Mac Buckets makes two good points. There’s actually very little conservatism in neoconservatism; military hawkishness traditionally went right along with other ways that liberals sought to intervene freely in foreign affairs. Other than Bush 41, the major wars of the 20th century were started (or joined) by Democrats.
I believe that the neoconservatives’ chief problem with liberalism was that it wasn’t liberal enough.
Mac Buckets
Maybe so, maybe not — it’s impossible to say. Even if a Democrat would’ve done what it took to oust Saddam, I guess that most of the left would never have questioned the war (hell, it probably wouldn’t even be called a “war” by the media), and would be championing the Liberation of Iraq with the Lowest Casualty Rate Ever to this day.
Tim F.
As long as we’re arguing hypotheticals, I would’ve raised hypothetical hell.
srv
Hypothetically, it would have been a tough sell even if it had been proposed for leftist politically correct reasons (ala Kosovo).
And I guarantee the right would have been out there marching in the streets with me about it too. That’s what’s so amazing about the right – they can’t see the forest for the trees when it comes to blatant hypocrisy.
Mac Buckets
But don’t you think that interventionist Conservatism has much less to do with a concerted philosophical change, and more to do with the realities of a shrinking world? It was fairly easy to be a Washingtonian unilateralist, even through two World Wars, up until the Cold War. As the world shrinks due to ease of transport, linked economies, new weapons technology, the natural expansion of freedoms, etc., very few people would suggest anymore that as long as we tend to our business and our borders, America will be safe and strong. Unilateralism and isolationism are remnants of bygone times, back when you knew you were OK until you saw a fleet off your coastline.
Incidentally, just as there appears to be little traditional Conservatism in neoconservatism, there is little traditional liberalism in the stance of the left on Iraq. It’s always amazing how the sides can flip around when things get partisan.
Mac Buckets
Funny, the Right didn’t protest to any meaningful extent in the streets about Kosovo, about Bosnia, about Haiti, or even about Iraq during Desert Fox (and neither did the left). In fact, when was the last time the Right ever led a war protest? What on earth makes you think that they would’ve protested the Iraq War? It’s almost as if you’re projecting the left’s partisan hypocrisy on the right without anything to back it up.
Mac Buckets
Good for the hypothetical you! Did your actual self protest Clinton’s Desert Fox (and I say that knowing full-well that if all the
liberalscenter-left who say they protested Desert Fox actually did protest, then the published count of US protests — out of the 150-odd worldwide protests — probably wouldn’t have been: Zero)?John S.
What a hoot, Mac regaling us with his profound knowledge of liberalism.
Considering that classic liberalism is stridently anti-imperialist – or what we might refer to today as anti-interventionist or anti-war, I find it highly amusing that Mac seems to think that the stance taken by most liberals in regards to this war is out of line with their core beliefs.
Tim F.
Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq. The real me thought that Saddam was well-contained by the occasional bombing sortie.
I think that a changing world pushed conservatism in the general direction of internationalism and away from isolationism, while at the same time the neocons came along and shoved their corner of conservatism right off the cliff. Conservatism in general wasn’t anywhere near where the neocons were until George junior came along and did his uniter thing.
In all honesty that may be regarded at Bush 43’s great accomplishment: his ability to unite the many corners of conservatism and neo-conservatism under one banner, at least for a while. He was definitely a uniter, as long as you’re talking about Republicans.
ppGaz
For real entertainment, get Darrell into an argument about the political ancestry of the Neocons. Be sure to say “Trotskyite.” It sends him into a meltdown.
But anyway, you are quite right.
Neocons are Actually Commies
Mac Buckets
You thought so, but Clinton did not. Seems like that would’ve been enough reason for someone on the left to protest.
So a Democrat can unilaterally bomb a country with 10,000 tons of ordnance, without telling Congress or the UN (who loudly denounced it), on the basis of an unproven WMD threat, and you guys can’t muster up the outrage for one “Where’s the WMD proof?” or “No pre-emptive strikes!” or “What has Iraq done to us?” sign? That sounds remarkably like a group who agrees that Saddam had WMD.
srv
My hypothetical to your hypothetical was that if Clinton had invaded Iraq, the right would have gone apeshit and many in the left would have gone along (presuming a ‘humanitarian’ justification). The right would have gone apocolyptic if Clinton had ‘done the right thing’ and invaded Afghanistan also (13 days after the Cole bombing, all they could do was scream Monica! from every rooftop – but, no I guess that was some leftist projecting…).
Many on the right did bitch and moan about Kosovo. And about nationbuilding (present POTUS included). Perhaps rightly so for many reasons, although anyone who thinks the Serbs were going to leave them alone is nuts (see Bosnia, Croatia, etc).
Yes, there were very few Dems protesting with us. Most of the protests in the 90’s were about sanctions. Since we were bombing them practically all the time, I’m unable to remember if any of those protests happened with Desert Fox.
Mac Buckets
A few GOP pols spoke against Kosovo (some wisely, some not), but the rank-and-file GOP were behind it, and certianly didn’t march in the streets to protest it, which was the question to begin with.
Again, I ask: When was the last time the right marched against a war? If your answer is, “I can’t think of one,” then what on earth makes you think that Iraq would’ve been the first?
I’m seriously befuddled by your charges of the Right’s hypocrisy, since because they didn’t protest Clinton’s Desert Fox OR Bush’s invasion, they are the only ones who have been consistent on the matter of Iraq.
Mac Buckets
I don’t know who “us” is (Canadians?), but for fun, Google “Desert Fox Protest” and yell “Echoooooooo!”
srv
I never said they would have marched about Kosovo. It would have been suicide considering how well it was marketed. But Rush was pounding his table and saying “I’m not going to go there! I’m not going to talk about body bags!” every 30 minutes. Sheesh.
Many neocons supported Kosovo, but the masses of the right were not out there flag waving.
Because they hated Clinton with a passion. The same passion many on the left have for Bush. You talk about changing world-views based on partisanship, but then you talk as though neoconism was some mainstream philosophy amongst Republicans in the 90’s and everybody would have marched behind neocon Willy? Please.
I think they would have come out in the streets if Clinton had invaded Iraq. If you were a pre-historic (pre-9/11) neocon, I think you would not have found much in common with most republicans of the time. Maybe you missed the whole Kosovo/Lewinsky/nationbuilding/US troops under UN thing.
I knew the Right didn’t give a rats ass about the Iraqi people then, because if they had, they’d be yelling for invasion or joining me and humanitarianly opposing sanctions. They did neither. Most the Left didn’t care either. But dropping bombs on some remote country (something we do alot of) is a far cry in most peoples minds from invading and occupying a country of 25 million.
Mac Buckets
Just not enough to march against Clinton’s use of the military in Kosovo…or in Haiti…or in Bosnia…or in Desert Fox. Face it, practically the only times the rank-and-file right liked Clinton was when he was using the military! To suggest that they would’ve somehow rejected the military ouster of Saddam is a very tough sell, seeing as how it doesn’t follow the course of history very well.
Again, who as a group has been more consistent in its stance on Iraq than the Right? No one.
Not to mention liberating them.
srv
Yes, the right has consistently followed the ever changing status quo vis-a-vis Iraq over the years:
1982-89 – He’s our friend b/c he kills Iranians. What chemical weapons are you talking about?
1990 – Saddam Bad! Hitler!
1991 – Yeah, Saddam bad, must be lived with now
1991-2001 – Saddam is a bad boy, we will sanction his ass and make him a poster child of him while his population suffers
2001 – Saddam is contained (Powell, Rice)
2002 – Saddam! Osama! 9/11! 9/11! Mushroom clouds!
I’m sure the right has plenty of rationalizations for this consistency.
Mac Buckets
Een accepting your bizarre, inaccurate history, that’s still more consistent than the left, innit? It’s got at least two fewer u-turns by my account.
Are you sure you want the right to take sole credit for those UN sanctions? Do I get to give the left credit for “oil-for-fraud,” then?
And when did the left turn against sanctions? Most of them seem to think they should still be on!
srv
I’m not here to defend the left (at least the left Dems). You keep bringing up the right.
The Reps have controlled Congress for the sanctions period. Clintons philosophy dove-tailed out of belief or political necessity, I really don’t care which. We pretty much drove the UN Security Council in the 90’s (Kosovo being a notable exception). The UN body efforts to lift sanctions was probably one of the real reasons for wars timeline.
As I said earlier, some on the ‘left’ did oppose sanctions, but that didn’t include most Dems or any Reps. I don’t know why you think the ‘left’ still supports sanctions.
jobiuspublius
Because they’re body snatchers.
Sojourner
Don’t you get tired of the same old tired argument? No matter how many times you repeat it, it’s still bullshit.
Jon H
“The UN body efforts to lift sanctions was probably one of the real reasons for wars timeline.”
But realistically, those efforts would have been *much* easier to resist post-9/11.
Jon H
Mac B writes: “Just not enough to march against Clinton’s use of the military in Kosovo…or in Haiti…or in Bosnia…or in Desert Fox. Face it, practically the only times the rank-and-file right liked Clinton was when he was using the military!”
But marching really isn’t the right’s bag. They’re better at being puppets than making them. ;^)
The right has other outlets. As far as I can remember, the only right-wing marches that get any significant attendance are the anti-abortion ones.
Jon H
Mac Buckets writes: “So a Democrat can unilaterally bomb a country with 10,000 tons of ordnance, without telling Congress or the UN (who loudly denounced it), on the basis of an unproven WMD threat, and you guys can’t muster up the outrage for one “Where’s the WMD proof?” or “No pre-emptive strikes!” or “What has Iraq done to us?” sign? That sounds remarkably like a group who agrees that Saddam had WMD.”
Iraq may have had dinosaurs too at one point. Doesn’t mean they have them now.
Time matters. Things exist, and then later they don’t.
Jon H
“So exactly who would have been more competent and capable? This is just more of the tired ‘anyone but Bush’ meme.”
Lots of people.
What makes you think Bush is some hard-to-match paragon of talent and ability?
He ain’t. The only thing he excels at is being mediocre.
Hell, the man doesn’t even hardly *try*. The average 2nd grade teacher puts in more hours a week than Bush does.
Say what you like about Clinton, but he put the time in. We’re lucky if our $400,000 a year gets Bush to spend any time at his desk, as opposed to being in bed, or on his bike, or in the gym.