February 07, 2005
The Depths of Memory
Is it a blessing or a curse to forget?
In the midst of the beginnings of the second term of the Bush Administration, I ask myself that question. I ask that question not to be pessimistic, but because I believe that integrity is worth fighting to keep, and that most gains recieved on account of dishonesty are hollow.
How much of the past can we let go and disregard before we lose hold of our future?
I am not alone in believing rememberance a worthy pursuit, but sometimes I get the sense the conservatives have a selective memory when they speak of those things. When it came to Iraq, many conservatives were asking Democrats if they had forgotten about 9/11. But what about remembering the absolute absence of Iraqi terrorism against the U.S. for the past eight years? What about remembering that al-Qaeda terrorists have it in for secular arab socialists like Saddam?
Of course, there was all that new evidence that the Neocons supposedly mined from all different sources. But when somebody asks them, have they forgotten, they must answer "yes". They forgot to tell us the information they mined was often undependable, single sourced, unverified by any cross-references. They forgot to tell us that much of their new information was from a single source, reported from many different quarters to give the illusion of a bonanza of new intelligence. They forgot to tell us they didn't have any on-site confirmation of the WMDs that we were supposed to risk lives, prestige, and fiscal balance to take out of Saddam's hands. They forgot to tell us that satellite photos can only take a surface perspective of things. You can't determine the obscured contents of tanks and trucks with satellite imaging. You can only make an educated guess. How educated depends on the rest of your intelligence.
They did remember something, and I distinctly remember them saying it, over and over again. We started this war to disarm Saddam Hussein. It was our excuse for taking him out of power. It was our connection of this war at its start to the war against terrorism. It was our reason to make an end-run around the balky U.N. It was our reason to take the heat off of al-Qaeda in Central Asia.
I remember the curious absence of concern over terrorism in 2001 before that infamous September day. I remember us going from the staccato concern with terrorism and terrorist acts to the legato of missile defense and rogue state rhetoric.
I remember the absolute horror and terror of that day, the monstrous clouds of debris chasing running New Yorkers, the planes crashing into buildings from all kinds of angles, the collapse of the buildings so much more messy than some Michael Bay film would portray. I remember not seeing any footage of the first plane hit until late in the afternoon.
I remember a president saying that he saw footage of the first plane hitting the twin towers before going into the classroom to read "The Pet Goat", then looking surprised when somebody tells him about the second plane. I remember the seven minutes that go by, Seven minutes where some people might have made their apologies and rushed off to get to work running the response against those who committed the act.
I remember members of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld signing a letter years earlier advocating stronger action against Iraq. I remember Prominent Neocons were advising Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997 to take a pre-emptive action against Iraq and Syria, with Terrorism and WMDs as pretexts. I remember Paul O'Neill's account of a meeting ten days into the first term dealing with not whether to attack Iraq, but how. I remember principle cabinet officers and deputies of this administration bringing up Iraq as among the first targets in the War on Terrorism, as a culprit, despite already existing evidence pointing towards al-Qaeda and its Taliban-ruled hiding place.
How many of you have forgotten? Or maybe never bothered to find out? Recalling the details, I can feel at peace with the position I've taken, with the passion I've argued the point with. Other Democrats can do the same. Though a president like Bush still governs from the White House despite our best efforts, we can be proud that we didn't forget, that we never let the Bush administration slide on these issues.
Bush deserved to have his service questioned, in the light of all those he sent to die in combat. This war's strategies and preparations deserved to be questioned, to be judged ill suited to the task that really lay before us. Bush, Rumsfeld and others deserved to be held responsible for their mistakes, especially after all the occasions when months of denials turned into moments of candor.
The Iraqi election is a bright spot in what has been a long, dark time for this country. But it should not serve as vindication for a first term of lies, mistakes, and the divisive political rhetoric that covered for them.
It should not become a license for more of the same behavior, no more than a DWI acquittal is justification for a champagne toast on the drive home. The past is yet to fully catch up to us. The present is yet in motion.
It is a curse to forget, to act half-blindly while dealing with an already chaotic world. While we must never give up on finding the better path for our country, we must not fool ourselves into thinking that this country can continue its march of progress in the world on false hopes and hollow theories.
Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2005 08:42 PMNot only is it a curse to forget that the leader of a country who, though willing to send others to their death, blatantly avoided any kind of combat service in his own time, it is the duty and responsibility of every American to stand up and say “HELL, NO! when it is obvious they are being lied to. A truly democratic person does not allow his “elected” leaders to send them or their children off to war for corporate profit and personal ideology.
Posted by: Bruce at February 8, 2005 12:52 AMBruce-
While I agree that it is an American’s duty to penalize candidates who are not honest with them, I must also acknowledge two things:
1)Time has a dulling effect on memory that’s not refreshed.
2)If you don’t have enough facts, you might not be convinced of the depths of the problem.
I wouldn’t mind if the Bush administration makes the best of this election, and brings us victory. I just don’t trust them to get that done, based on past experience.
You should keep in mind most people don’t send their children off to war for Halliburton or strict ideology. Most people honestly think or honestly thought the best of this war when it started. It is our duty as the political oppositon to present coherent account of the way the world is really working. Otherwise, what reason do these people have to think differently?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2005 01:10 AMGood points Stephen, but I think we need to look further into the policies of the neocons going back to pre-Reagan days and all the flunkies that are still active in this administration. They maneuver around the main topics that concern the world village as a whole with flagrant deception that is so distorted that it makes those with a moral, but wavering conscious about simple decency for mankind forget what is truley important in bringing the world together and taking a stand against this corporate greed disquised as freedom.
Will the media finally stand up to the dishonest and purley unethical manner in which the Iraq war was shoved down our throats and come clean about the consequences pertaining to the costs in paying for this blunder just proposed in the upcoming budget and how they have and will continue to minimize the hope of an entire generation? I think not.
We can’t lay back and forget because it may seem convenient at the time and let the next election be a sounding board for that hope. We need to fight on and keep the dialogue moving in the right direction, to be open and not intimidated about our statements and internal thoughts concerning this univeral disgrace of misaligned greed for the affluent. They are destroying not only our society, but the world at large, with no regrets and little if any conscious about the needs of the oppressed whom they want to keep in their place…misinformed and detached from the real meaning of Democracy. Don’t forget; take an honest stand and let your voices be heard wherever you are, and whenever you can, and be proud of your honest determination to remember what is right.
Karl Rove and the Republican Spin Machine deliberately lied to the People. Do you remember Cheney repeatedly saying that Iraq did 9/11 and had WMD even AFTER the Search was finished and Findings published? Do you remember Rush Limbugh and Bill O’Rielly attacking the Father who lost his Daughter in Iraq? Do you remember the News Networks speaking verbatin anything the White House puts out without even doing any research on it?
The Republicans are trained to not think. They only watch Fox News and listen to Talk Radio. They never attend any meetings where an opposing point-of-view can challenge them. That’s why Bush only go to venues where the Attendees are pre-screened. Any Free-Thinkers in the crowd are “requested” by burly men to leave.
I feel sorry for Conservatives. I just wish I could feel pity for them from a distance. You KNOW they will drag you down with them if they can. For this reason, I support an Enlist Young Republicans Movement. I urge these Bush Voters to do the Moral thing and join the Army!!! Let their Beliefs lead them to Iraq and keep the rest of us smart people from getting Drafted.
Posted by: Aldous at February 8, 2005 02:28 AM” taking a stand against this corporate greed disquised as freedom.” by Mathew
That is the root of it all. What the Republicans call Freedom is really corporate greed. That philosophy is being taught to the younger generation and is becoming personal greed.
At what point does wanting to build a good life for yourself and your family become greed? If we could analyse and focus on greed and be able to define it in a way that shows it to be the evil that it is, then I think we could change the world.
Will the media finally stand up to the dishonest and purely unethical manner in which the Iraq war was shoved down our throats? (by Michael)
No they won’t Michael, because they were the ones that shoved it down our throats. I will never forgive the media for beating the war drums and demeaning those who had a dissenting voice against the war. They were prepared for the war and knew how to make dissenters seem unpatriotic. They are part of the Bush machine. They have even condoned torture, putting our soldiers at risk.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
Bush started with a military machine that is stonger than all the rest of the world combined & an economy in excellent shape. He managed to squander both those advantages, but hey, the stock market is looking good!
Whee! It’s a liberal free-for-all! Let me get in a lick or two. :)
I remember members of the Bush administration, including Rumsfeld signing a letter years earlier advocating stronger action against Iraq.
Here’s the letter. My favorite part is,
…if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction… the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.
Holy Cow! THE OIL AT HAZARD?!!! This must be stopped at all costs! :)
Here’s the defense white paper from the same group of neo-conservative wackos…ahem…I mean the president’s advisors. BTW, being very conservative on defense issues, I have to say these guys are pretty radical - as we’ve seen.
While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.
You can’t make the point that the Iraq adventure had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein any plainer than that. We’re going to be there for a long, long time. And seriously, if we’re not going to stop driving 12 mpg SUVs and wean ourselves from sucking oil at the teats of Muslim fundamentalists, we need to be.
Excellent article Stephen, but some of these guys still think we found WMD in Iraq. I doubt many have ever heard of the events you mention, and they’ll probably just dismiss them as liberal raving since they don’t fit into the conservative radio world view.
All this reminds me of a joke.
Q: What’s the difference between Iraq & Vietnam?
A: Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
I don’t want to sound too cynical, but you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The situation in the middle east is gonna get WAY ugly.
Vive La Resistance
Posted by: Jeff Hatmaker at February 8, 2005 08:50 AMJust one thing you guys all forgot - we live in a REPUBLIC - as stated under the constiution. That basically means that our Representives & Senators are obligated to follow the viewpionts of their ;constituents. (regardless of their lack knowledge, igorance, or religious views)
You know the refrain “Separation of Church and and State’
What we must do is educate the young voters and un-voters (what does one call a person who does not vote?) about the way a true REPUBLIC should
work - we hired them and we can fired them. Whether by not re-electing the same idots we contintue to put back into office - or if it comes down to it - impeach them for not following the rules of Constituation, ie. that they should be represnting their Constituents - all of them, and never themselves..
Matthew-
I already posted an article regarding this called Was Iraq the First Time?
Truth is, labelling this as corporate both misses the big picture and opens us up to the inaccurate label of Socialism. This isn’t about evil capitalists. This about a degeneration of our Democratic society.
No where is this more apparent than in the way this country procures its arms. People aren’t practical about it. They’ll get these high-maintenance, overspecialized, overpowered weapons, and for all the glamour attached to them, the real war winners will be these moderately priced, dependable machines like the A-10 Warthog and the JDAM bombs. In WWII, the Sherman Tanks were vastly inferior to the Panzers, but the Panzers lacked the numbers and durability to persist in the face of the waves of the easy to repair and mass produce Shermans. High technology can be a killer advantage, but only if it’s attached to dependable machines (JDAMs with their use of GPS for example.)
As for the media, you should understand that the Bush administration has done a good job of playing the referees on this. To learn more about this war, I would advise people go and watch Frontline’s various episodes on the subject I think if the vast majority of people had been persuaded to sit down and watch this, Bush would not be president.
The facts revealed are just too awful to ignore. Some people may carp about inordinate focus being made on mistakes, but these facts present evidence on the chronic nature of these screwups, and what that indicates about the leadership in the White House.
Unfortunately, Republicans are trained more to be effective soldiers for the cause than critical interpreters of the policy they put forwards. They are not encouraged to be thoughtless, but rather to place faith in the recieved wisdom of the policies.
I think young conservatives should enlist, and not just in the Air Force or Navy, but in the Army and Marines, which have been short on recruits. But I also think that Democrats should do the same. We must show we are willing to die for this country, if we want to influence what we die for. The Liberal traditions of critical thought and respect for different cultures should become part of the mix of ideas in the armed forces. Otherwise, we will be a centrist country mismatched with a right-wing foreign policy.
In the end, our policy must work within the real world, slipping past defenses, working through cultural barrier rather than against them. We must inspire our allies to come to our aid, rather than expecting them to come to our aid selflessly with no profit to themselves.
Bush must realize that he is not the person in this world who can be stubbornly resolved. The trick is in being both strong-willed and subtle, working surprises on others rather than being surprised ourselves. Our strength is multiplied when it works with other forces in the world. It is diminished when it has to fight it. We must be careful how we employ our strength.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2005 11:01 AMExcellent article, Stephen.
I’m with Linda. There is more than enough evidence to impeach Bush.
According to the Constitution: “The president, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Here are a bunch of reasons that the president, the vice president and their officers should be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
1. Bush spent much of his first year in office on vacation - and as a result, missed opportunities to thwart the 9/11 attacks before they occurred.
2. Bush and his appointees had a plan to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Proof of this is demonstrated by three things:
*Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle, etc., sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998 regarding their desire to wage war on Iraq.
*Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill claims that from the early days of Bush’s administration, the president was planning on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
*Evidence that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld told aides to come up with plans to attack Iraq, even though there was no reason to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
3. Bush and his appointees deliberately distorted and lied about the threat to the United States from Iraq in order to justify the invasion:
*There were no yellowcake uranium sales from Africa to Iraq
*Senator Bill Nelson revealed that 75 senators received a classified briefing before the vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq under the War Powers act. In the briefing, a Bush Administration official misled the senators, stating that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, they had the means to deliver them to cities on the East Coast.
*Acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs said that Iraq was no threat, and that “key evidence cited by the administration was misrepresented to the public.”
*Public and classified versions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons capabilities differ - the public versions all speak in certainties in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.
*Richard Clarke, Bush’s (then) top anti-terrorism adviser, was told by Rumsfeld during the aftermath of Sept. 11 to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks.
*Clarke also had a conversation with Bush, who left him with the impression that he wanted him to come back with a report that said “Iraq did this.”
*Bush eventually admitted that there was no direct link between Saddam Hussein and the men who attacked on September the 11th.
4. Bush diverted resources from fighting Osama bin Laden to fighting Saddam Hussein, and squandered the opportunity to capture bin Laden.
5. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq - a pre-emptive act of aggressive war.
6. Bush signed the Patriot Act, which included unconstitutional provisions that give the government the legal authority to spy on Americans, and gave law enforcement officials broad authority to conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps
7. Bush amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which permits surveillance whenever “foreign intelligence” is a “significant purpose” rather than the “primary purpose” of an investigation - and this act was later expanded so that now the FBI only needs to say that financial records are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. Additionally, the FBI now doesn’t need to show probable cause or consult a judge to obtain these records.
8. Bush issued Executive Order 13233, in which former presidents are given virtually unlimited discretion to withhold their records indefinitely - this is a good way to conceal any misdeeds from We the People.
9. Bush, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft are co-conspirators in violating the Geneva Convention.
10. Iraqi POWs were (are?) systematically tortured as a result of a decision approved by Secretary Rumsfeld, while the Department of Defense’s military and civilian lawyers produced a report which said torturers acting under presidential orders could not be prosecuted. In addition, Atty General Ashcroft refused to answer whether he personally believes that torture can be justified under certain circumstances.
11. The Department of Justice labeled POWs from the Afghanistan conflict as having no rights to the protections afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.
12. The Department of Justice secretly detained more than 1,200 people - many on the flimsiest of pretenses - and would not release their names or notify anyone of their detention. All held were accused of being “material witnesses to terrorism”.
13. The Department of Justice feels they no longer must provide documents to support the govt’s assertion that a person should be classified as an enemy combatant without the rights of a citizen. In their view the government can now illegally and arbitrarily detain an American citizen indefinitely without the protections afforded by the United States Constitution.
14. The Constitutional right of Free Speech may now be restricted to specific areas (away from crowds) in order to minimize its effect, and quite a few instances have now been documented where citizens were harassed for criticizing the President or his actions.
15. Someone in the Bush administration revealed the identity of an undercover CIA operative in order to exact revenge on a former U.S. envoy critical of the President - and there is the chance that this action had the President’s knowledge or approval.
Anyone who would wish to argue with me over this should take a look at the Nuremberg Charter (law under which the Nazis were tried). Specifically these provisions:
No. 82, Principle II: The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
No. 82, Principle III: The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
No. 82, Principle IV: The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
No. 82, Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
2. War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
3. Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
No. 82, Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.”
Briefly, on the topic of remembrance….
The Administration lied to its people for whatever it hopes to gain from the Iraq war. Thousands of people killed, a city demolished, bombings continue and show no signs of stopping. The justification of the moment is the freedom of the Iraqi people - give the people a right to choose a leader, and hope he doesn’t become a despot. Do the means justify those particular ends?
It will always depend on whom you ask. Myself, I’m for using violence as a last resort, and I don’t think we were there yet. Iraqis? Depends on who’s died, what their experience was like before we arrived, what their outlook was and is now.
So when do you choose to forget? Most likely when you can - when the strife doesn’t affect you personally or when it only affects you positively. You hear the cheers of “freed” Iraqis home from the polls and you think, “Maybe it was worth it…maybe freedom is worth dying for.” And if you’re one of the parents who’ve lost a son or daughter, maybe you’ll never forget, and you’ll never think the war in Iraq was for the greater good.
Bush should be impeached and tossed out on his ear with the rest of his lackeys (I’ve always thought of him as the lackey, actually.) for his deceit and abuse of America’s and the world’s trust. But is the freedom of Iraq, after all that has transpired, a good thing? Depends on who you are, what you believe, and how much you can forgive.
Posted by: Thomas R at February 8, 2005 06:04 PMWonderful article Stephen,
My two cents:
The closest comparison I can make to this administration is the government of Brazil and the Bechtel water project fiasco in Brazil.
When the Iraq war started, there was a bunch of liberal ranting about the evil corporations (like Bechtel) that were the “Mother Courage” carrion feeders of this war. I did some investigation on Bechtel into the main points the liberals had against them, and then I followed the electricity reconstruction projects in detail, as well as some investigation into the claims that the reason the grid was in such poor condition was (primarily) because Saddam diverted money away from basic infrastructure and towards himself.
To explain my conclusions, I’ll first explain to you what happened with the Brazilian water project. Many years ago, Bechtel was contracted to build a vast public works water project for an extremely impoverished area. The project was extremely expensive, and resulted in water rates that were unaffordable for the poor people it was designed to help. In fact, it actually caused the poor to have to rely on even poorer quality water that they could buy from black market water sellers. There was an uprising, and violence. Bechtel is now suing for the money they are owed.
If you look at the data, from all sides, no one (but PBS) appears to have gotten the story correct. Bechtel paints a rosy picture of responsiblity, the government of Brazil paints a picture of crazy civilians, and the civilians paint a picture of a corrupt corporation and government.
The truth is that the Brazilian government was corrupt. It demanded that Bechtel build the water project in line with some bizarre points that would put money into the pockets of specific powerful individuals in the government, and benefit the businesses of these individuals. Because Bechtel is primarily interested in making money for itself, Bechtel makes certain that its PR does not reveal the fact that it categorically stated to the corrupt officials that their demands would make the water project too expensive. (as PBS revealed) They did the project anyway, and put as positive a PR spin on it as they could. Bechtel itself is a very well run company, with excellent engineers, and low corruption in house. They did the best job they could with a government who seemed hell-bent on making things as difficult as possible. The people, on the other hand, only heard pieces of this information, and only realized the effect it would have on them after it was too late. That’s when you got the riots.
Bechtel, to this date, has PR on its site explaining that its project was done as professionally and inexpensively as possible. This is true, and a lie. It’s true, because they did it as professionally as possible. It’s a lie, because they knew from day one that the project was too expensive because the Brazilian government had a list of unreasonable demands (due to corruption). Bechtel does not reveal the corruption of the governments that it works for, because if Bechtel revealed the corruption of these governments, then Bechtel would never get a job, because the majority of their money comes from governments.
This is why I have had such a hard time with the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. On the one hand, I have all this data pointing to lies and obfuscation. On the other hand, I can also see that some really excellent work is being done. I couldn’t figure out the dichotomy. Should I be angry at liars who do a good job? Isn’t what’s important the fact that these reconstruction groups appear to be responsible and efficient?
But it is the same issue as Brazil. Yes, the poor people of Brazil now have a public water system that is top quality, and well constructed. It was about 4 times as expensive as it should have been, and the people whose pockets were lined because of corrupt policies were never taken to account, and the government prevented pepole from using the new water system because they can’t afford it, and they also don’t have hte parts to repair it, and now bechtel won’t touch the area with a ten foot pole….
which indicates the ongoing issues when you have corruption at the top.
It appears that much the same is what happened in Iraq. The U.N. had very extensive data on the infrastructure of Iraq. They had this data because they were in contact with the engineers on site, and they sent their own engineers on site. They took pictures of these sites, and every year drew up lists detailing the parts that needed to be fabricated, and a priority list of projects. These projects were systemitcally rejected, and one of the most vociferous objections always came from the United States. The excuse was duel use. This was a good excuse, however, no effort was made to figure out a responsible way of repairing the grid. The problem was complex, and the American solution was to ignore it, and allow the grid to deteriote, and soothe ourselves by blaming saddam. The focus was not on the people of Iraq, it was on unseating Saddam from power.
When the war started, our higher ups were very angry with the United Nations. We didn’t want any American money lining the pockets of anyone in the U.N. or any foreign country who happened to have expertise on the situation (Specifically Simens, who had engineers who had actually been on site, as much of the Iraqi power equipment is German) We wanted all the money to stay “in house”. The new plan, you will notice, called for everything to be replaced with one standard. The standard? American made power plant products. (Not German, or Russian) The neo-cons also, I believe, had an idea that they could get out fairly quickly after doing some quick and minor touch-ups.
The reason they didn’t realize this was extremely unlikely to happen (see Woodward’s book Plan of Attack) was because they didn’t assign their top people to the reconstruction issue. They also refused to bring in any of the in-house personnel who had long-term experience on what it would take to repair Iraq. (Again, none of the foreigners either) The people with experience didn’t have the kind of “good thinking” that the group in power wanted. They only wanted insiders working on the reconstruction aspect of Iraq. The result was, they didn’t spend the time, or get the information they needed, to understand the scope of what they would face after the war.
Because the commitment wasn’t there, and because the expertise and organization from the top wasn’t there, the result is reconstruction that is much more expensive than it had to be, and a lot riskier than it had to be. And also repeats of mistakes that we have made before (read any of the War College papers on what to expect when you occcupy a country. Point by point, it’s exactly what we’re facing).
Is Bechtel doing a good job? They’re doing a great job with the situation they were given. Would they tell us if the administration was incompetent? Absolutely not.
If we spent as much time and money on repairing a country as we do trying to find particular individuals to kill, I feel we’d be a lot further along. Do we have the information on how to do it properly? We have a lot of information. The U.N. has a lot of information. Unfortunately, the people who are good at this information don’t sit in only one camp. They represent all sorts of ideologies.
The reason the best minds of reconstruction were shut out is because they were against the war. The were against the war, becaues they had a good idea of how expensive and hard (and uncertain) the aftermath would be. Because they were doubtful, they were shut out of the decision making process, for fear that they would leak information to the outside, and because also the neo-cons just plain think their idiots (because they don’t think the same as the neo-cons).
This is why we need people in power who are truly interested in problem solving, rather than interested in partisanship. And there is plenty of guilt to go around on the Hill.
Thanks again, Stephen. Good work.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at February 8, 2005 06:44 PMSmoke and Mirrors…
Rumsfeld is hiding tens of billions of dollars of spending in budget supplementals, including predictable costs that should be put in the regular budget.
During the Vietnam war, Defense Secretary MacNamara tried something similar, according to David Halberstam. In The Best and the Brightest, Halberstam told how the Johnson administration’s hiding of the cost overruns on Vietnam led to increased deficits and additional secondary economic effects. What he also reveals is that the American economy could have handled the debt burden directly through increased taxes, and avoided the economic evils that deficit spending led to.
The American economy was not all that troubled by its tax rates during the Clinton years. It was the corporate corruption, the lost promises of squandered Dot-Com wealth that dragged down the economy. It’s time for the president to pay his bills and pay them now, before he costs us future prosperity on the deficit’s account.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2005 09:30 AM
