Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

« AIDS Photographs || Back to Blog | Random Acts of JD »

March 13, 2003

Ambivalent but Not Undecided

I got asked on a mailing list why my views on the Iraqi war are so simplistic and one-sided. Ouch! Here's how I replied:


Like many people, I'm ambivalent about it. I am completely suspicious of the actual motives of the Bush administration and don't trust the information it's providing. But I don't need Bush to tell me that Saddam is a horror that we should never have supported in the first place. That doesn't necessarily mean that this war is the best way to get rid of him: the carnage may be too high, the final outcome may be worse for the Iraqis, the region may become embroiled in war, Hussein may destroy Israel and Boston on his way out, we may unilaterally destroy the alliances and goodwill towards us that has made the world safer, and IMO we are likely to start a 100 years war against a terrorist movement that is strengthened and emboldened by our attack. How many American cities are you prepared to lose in retaliation for this war?

Note the "may's" and "if's." It could all go great and none of the bad things may happen. I believe that, which is why I'm ambivalent. Ambivalent but not undecided.

Finally, my best guess about why Bush has rummaged through every possible justification for going to war is that we really want to show the world that we are in charge: we are the only superpower and we are willing to use our power. John Perry Barlow says that everyone gets out of the way of the driver who's unpredictably weaving down the road, and the Iraq war is intended to show that we are willing to intervene unpredictably. But bringing peace through power works only so long as the bad guys can't get their hands on any boxcutters. Our only hope for long-term safety, IMO, is to live in the world generously, building bridges and trust by showing the generous and loving side of the American character. So, even if all goes perfectly with the war, it will (I'm afraid) establish a policy that I think makes us and our children far less safe.

Notice that I haven't mentioned WMD. I personally don't believe that the war has even the slightest thing to do with that.

Posted by D. Weinberger at March 13, 2003 08:50 AM


Comments

David, I'm in the same camp as you are, but I have a slightly different take on why Bush jumps from explanation to explanation and why he sounds so incoherent when asked to explain anything. Bush simply does not operate on the basis of rational analysis. He operates on a belief system, and he really does believe that we should be able to do whatever we want, because, after all, we're America, and if we want to do it, it must be the right thing. It's the same kind of "faith-based" non-thought that lies behind his pushing of tax cuts. It's why he's genuinely so flabbergasted when opposed, and so unable to offer anything like a real explanation grounded in logic -- he has not, in fact, thought things through. This also fits in with his total inability to put himself in someone else's shoes and imagine their reaction (ie - North Korea after the Bush repudiation of South Korean attempts at rapprochement, the idiotic "axis of evil" speech, etc.).

Wasn't it Ian Buruma who said something to the effect that a true believer is much more dangerous than a cynical operator, because while the latter might cut a deal, the former is compelled to take the world down in flames with him, because he "knows" he has the "truth".

Posted by: John Stein | March 13, 2003 01:27 PM


Dave,

Nice phrase, 'ambivalent but not undecided'. In that way you and I are in the same camp, we simply resolved our ambivalences differently.

Paul

Posted by: Paul Philp | March 13, 2003 05:57 PM


I totally agree with the comments by John. I think Bush cannot put himself in other people's shoes and feels nothing for them. Everything is black and white and his way or the wrong way... He thinks God whispers to him, and how dare we question Bush/God? He does not understand why Iraqi people might be turning more and more against the US, as they struggle day-to-day with this terrible situation, death all around them, lack of basic services, etc. Additionally, what hardship has Bush ever endured? How can he know, feel, or understand the suffering of others? I almost choke on the words "compassionate conservative." I find nothing compassionate about the man and nothing conservative either. How conservative is it to not wait for weapons inspectors to finish their job? How conservative is it to run the deficit up to the largest it has ever been? I'm not sure that it is God who whispers in George Bush's ear, but quite possibly it is lucifer himself.

If you are interested, write to me at my email above, and I will be happy to give you the web site address that contains a moving Iraq war screen show set to music by Judith Jobse, "Fools Rule the World."

Posted by: Deb | October 12, 2004 11:05 PM


While President Bush continues to deny that his decision to go to war in Iraq was an egregious error, administration officials are revealing their true feelings for the war and conceding their mistakes. In a speech in Michigan yesterday, former CIA Director George Tenet admitted that the Iraq war was "wrong." "I believed [Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't," Tenet stated. President Bush's mistakes and his administration's manipulations include:

The rush to war in Iraq was not justified. The entire rationale for a rapid war in Iraq—the imminent threat of a major attack with weapons of mass destruction and the supposed Iraqi connection to 9/11—had no basis in reality. Beyond Tenet's admission, a new investigation by the Senate Armed Services committee concludes that an "intelligence unit, run by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, shaded analytic judgments, ignored contrary evidence and sidestepped the CIA to present dubious findings to senior officials at the White House," according to the L.A. Times. The Bush administration misled the American people and the world community.


Post-war security failures have left our troops in a chaotic environment. Top military officials and Paul Bremer, who served as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, have all stated that the administration did not supply enough troops and support to secure post-war Iraq. Consequently, our soldiers are caught-up in a rising insurgency, terrorists are pouring across the borders, and critical reconstruction efforts have been thwarted. Iraq is now a terrorist haven and training ground.


The wrong choices on Iraq have left the American people less secure and reduced our position as a trusted world leader. The ongoing strategic failures in Iraq have forced America down a dangerous path and left the U.S. taking 90 percent of the casualties and paying 90 percent of the cost. President Bush's decision to invade Iraq – and refusal since to admit error – have left us isolated and less able to take the steps we need to take to protect our people.

Posted by: Pete | October 28, 2004 05:45 PM


Post a comment

Guidelines for Commenting

Basically, you can say what you want. (Click here for the fine print.)

If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may be put into a queue for me to approve. Sorry for the delay. Blame the damn spammers.