Today's Article
Everyone wants
U.S. troops out of
Iraq. So why doesn't
George W. Bush
give a damn?
U.S. troops out of
Iraq. So why doesn't
George W. Bush
give a damn?
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bush Called Bi-Partisan Iraq Study Group Report 'A Flaming Turd'
By Cliff Montgomery - Apr. 5th, 2007
U.S. candidates for the November 2008 presidential race are scoring points on the great unpopularity of the
Iraq War. Even many Republicans want U.S. forces out of Iraq. So why doesn't President George W. Bush
give a damn?
As one might expect, Bush flatly rejected the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) on
January 10th, 2007, in favor of a study by a neo-conservative opinion-tank, the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI). Rather than the reasoned, phased withdrawal recommended by the ISG report, he chose what was
called a policy of “surge”--21,500 more soldiers sent directly to Iraq.
Much was made a few months ago of the apparent decline of the utopians in foreign policy. As Iraq was
surging into civil war, militarism and "fruitless nation-building" seemed on the outs and the best-known neo-
cons--Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, and John Bolton--had left the administration.
The November 7th elections were a major setback for the White House: Democratic majorities took both the
Senate and the House of Representatives, and Bush, admitting the "thumping" he had received at the hands
of voters, promised a “new way forward” in Iraq.
Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. Gates, a former appointee of President
George Bush, Sr., was also a member of the ISG. A close friend of Gates has described him as being “clearly
distraught over the incompetence of how the Iraq operation had been run,” according to the Washington Post.
The ISG report in December offered Bush an reasonable exit strategy with honor. Called "The Way Forward: A
New Approach", the report made two sets of recommendations.
The first, dealing with an accountable transition, recommended that combat troops leave Iraq by the first
quarter of 2008 and that the United States not create open-ended, permanent bases in Iraq.
The second set dealt with a new diplomatic offensive based on the realization--antithetical to the neo-
conservative vision--that there could be no military solution to Iraq. There was no mention of "spreading
democracy" in the Middle East.
The ISG report also called on the U.S. to “engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts” by
talking to Syria and Iran, and to renew serious efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict via the land-for-peace
principle.
The recommendations were generally embraced by the new Democratic majority as well as by a number of
Republicans. Bush clearly thought otherwise. In private, he is said to have called the ISG report “a flaming
turd”, according to Salon.com.
To understand why he prefers his own "flaming turd", one needs to investigate the religious, oedipal, and
political sources of Bush's presidency.
When asked a few years ago if he had consulted his father before commencing his own Iraq War, George W.
Bush replied: “You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I
appeal to.” There was no word on how this "higher father" could have gotten so much so wrong. Regardless,
the son was particularly keen to make a radical break in his foreign policy.
The elder Bush held a passion for foreign affairs. Dismissive of what he called “the vision thing”, he considered
himself a pragmatist and a realist. For his battle to dislodge Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, Bush Sr.'s
secretary of state, James Baker, had managed to assemble a coalition of 34 countries--significantly, some of
them Arab--to secure a U.S. mandate, and to arrange for American allies to foot the bill.
In contrast, George W. Bush had no foreign policy experience when he became president, and seemed almost
content in his ignorance of international affairs. Ambassador Peter Galbraith recently revealed in his book, The
End of Iraq, that as late as January 2003--two months before the invasion--Bush was completely unaware of
the Sunni-Shia divide within Islam.
The religious, psychological and un-informed dimensions within this Bush Administration transformed the
political debate, which became increasingly removed from empirical reality. As a top adviser to Bush (many
believe it's the political strategist Karl Rove) put it to journalist Ron Suskind:
"[Reality's] not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality.”
That's what Napoleon thought when he invaded first Spain, then Russia: He'd convinced himself that his
French Empire would bend those countries to his will, and that these two conservative theocracies of 19th-
Century Europe would greet his troops as liberators.
It's in this light that the invasion of Iraq was deemed certain to reform the Islamic world and redraw the map of
the Middle East. But wishful thinking is a very poor excuse for a real foreign policy, even for an empire--and yes
Virginia, truth does matter.
By Cliff Montgomery - Apr. 5th, 2007
U.S. candidates for the November 2008 presidential race are scoring points on the great unpopularity of the
Iraq War. Even many Republicans want U.S. forces out of Iraq. So why doesn't President George W. Bush
give a damn?
As one might expect, Bush flatly rejected the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) on
January 10th, 2007, in favor of a study by a neo-conservative opinion-tank, the American Enterprise Institute
(AEI). Rather than the reasoned, phased withdrawal recommended by the ISG report, he chose what was
called a policy of “surge”--21,500 more soldiers sent directly to Iraq.
Much was made a few months ago of the apparent decline of the utopians in foreign policy. As Iraq was
surging into civil war, militarism and "fruitless nation-building" seemed on the outs and the best-known neo-
cons--Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, and John Bolton--had left the administration.
The November 7th elections were a major setback for the White House: Democratic majorities took both the
Senate and the House of Representatives, and Bush, admitting the "thumping" he had received at the hands
of voters, promised a “new way forward” in Iraq.
Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary. Gates, a former appointee of President
George Bush, Sr., was also a member of the ISG. A close friend of Gates has described him as being “clearly
distraught over the incompetence of how the Iraq operation had been run,” according to the Washington Post.
The ISG report in December offered Bush an reasonable exit strategy with honor. Called "The Way Forward: A
New Approach", the report made two sets of recommendations.
The first, dealing with an accountable transition, recommended that combat troops leave Iraq by the first
quarter of 2008 and that the United States not create open-ended, permanent bases in Iraq.
The second set dealt with a new diplomatic offensive based on the realization--antithetical to the neo-
conservative vision--that there could be no military solution to Iraq. There was no mention of "spreading
democracy" in the Middle East.
The ISG report also called on the U.S. to “engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts” by
talking to Syria and Iran, and to renew serious efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict via the land-for-peace
principle.
The recommendations were generally embraced by the new Democratic majority as well as by a number of
Republicans. Bush clearly thought otherwise. In private, he is said to have called the ISG report “a flaming
turd”, according to Salon.com.
To understand why he prefers his own "flaming turd", one needs to investigate the religious, oedipal, and
political sources of Bush's presidency.
When asked a few years ago if he had consulted his father before commencing his own Iraq War, George W.
Bush replied: “You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I
appeal to.” There was no word on how this "higher father" could have gotten so much so wrong. Regardless,
the son was particularly keen to make a radical break in his foreign policy.
The elder Bush held a passion for foreign affairs. Dismissive of what he called “the vision thing”, he considered
himself a pragmatist and a realist. For his battle to dislodge Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, Bush Sr.'s
secretary of state, James Baker, had managed to assemble a coalition of 34 countries--significantly, some of
them Arab--to secure a U.S. mandate, and to arrange for American allies to foot the bill.
In contrast, George W. Bush had no foreign policy experience when he became president, and seemed almost
content in his ignorance of international affairs. Ambassador Peter Galbraith recently revealed in his book, The
End of Iraq, that as late as January 2003--two months before the invasion--Bush was completely unaware of
the Sunni-Shia divide within Islam.
The religious, psychological and un-informed dimensions within this Bush Administration transformed the
political debate, which became increasingly removed from empirical reality. As a top adviser to Bush (many
believe it's the political strategist Karl Rove) put it to journalist Ron Suskind:
"[Reality's] not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our
own reality.”
That's what Napoleon thought when he invaded first Spain, then Russia: He'd convinced himself that his
French Empire would bend those countries to his will, and that these two conservative theocracies of 19th-
Century Europe would greet his troops as liberators.
It's in this light that the invasion of Iraq was deemed certain to reform the Islamic world and redraw the map of
the Middle East. But wishful thinking is a very poor excuse for a real foreign policy, even for an empire--and yes
Virginia, truth does matter.