Cold and clear, and tons of sunshine this early Saturday on California’s north coast — supposed to be sunny through next week.
Wait-and-see, of course.
Another story I’d seen a few days ago, and just now comes back to mind — the think-tank RAND Corporation just published its “Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn,” which covered bad military fuck-ups ‘…from Napoleon’s invasion of Russia to America’s invasion of Iraq.’
Although the report insinuates George Jr’s Iraqi adventure ‘…was not a blunder on the scale of those of Napoleon, Hitler and Tojo,’ the invasion undergoes a horrific scathing.
Buried keynote (via Newsweek): ‘As noted, the President in particular was not the type to revisit a decision once made. At a minimum, if such risks had been identified, they might have been mitigated and the terrible costs to the United States and Iraq might have been reduced.’
(Illustration: ‘George W Bush,’ by Tonio, found here).
The boy was the “Decider,” we all know that — and following the advice of a hard-shell, hard-core cadre of longtime assholes, made a mistake beyond just military history. And just plain, nasty-faced idiocy — from the report:
The post-invasion model in the minds of those who decided to invade was that Iraqis freed from Saddam’s despotic rule would work through a peaceful political process to create a unified, democratic and productive state that would serve as a model for others in the Arab world.
The implication was that the demand for American occupation—troops, money, administration, and mediation—would be modest and brief.
If this view was naive, it also was expedient in gaining support for the decision to invade in the first place.
To some extent, the proponents of invasion discouraged pre-invasion consideration of post-invasion risks lest it raise doubts or cause delay. In any case, they had unjustifiable confidence in an unrealistic script—namely, that once Iraqi forces were defeated, Baghdad was taken, and Saddam was removed, fighting would subside, a democratic state would emerge, and increased oil production would produce ample revenues to rebuild and transform the country’s infrastructure and industry.
In any case, inadequate preparation and provision were made for the travail that would follow “mission accomplished.”
Read the whole Newsweek piece, which breaks down each little terrible segment in the entire operation. Hundreds, and hundreds of thousands of people died due to self-centered, arrogant clowns who will never pay for the real-bad shit they made.
In the beginning was Iraq — a long-forgotten bit from Paul O’Neill, who was George Jr.’s Treasury secretary for the first couple of years, and from “The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill,” by Ron Suskind (via a review in the Guardian, January 2004):
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” Mr O’Neill told the CBS network programme, 60 Minutes.
In the book, based largely on his recollections and written by an American journalist, Ron Suskind, Mr O’Neill said that even as far back as January 2001, when President Bush took office, no one in the NSC questioned the assumption that Iraq should be invaded.
And also from CNN (about the same time) on the O’Neill revelations:
Suskind said O’Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.
“There are memos,” Suskind told the network.
“One of them marked ‘secret’ says ‘Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'”
Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled “Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts,” which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration.
“It talks about contractors around the world from … 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq.”
In the book, O’Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.
“It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,'” O’Neill said.
In the recent release of the ‘CIA Torture Report,’ the RAND study makes the horror seems so distant and fare-thee-well — even as the US becomes more and more involved in the fight against ISIS (one of George Jr.’s, ‘Children of the Corn’ creations) and the violent side issues will never go away.
Yet no one points a finger at the little shit.
In fact, most go out of their way to compliment the asshole — like Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for three years, and is married to Samantha Power, Obama’s UN ambassador. Sunstein, at Bloomberg earlier this week lauded George Jr.’s ‘graceful silence,’ especially in the light of the CIA bullshit, and the recent literary antics of Leon Panetta and Bob Gates.
Main note to:
Bush doesn’t want to exploit his past role in that way.
“I really don’t long for publicity,” he said.
“I’m perfectly content to be out of the limelight.”
the horse’s ass:
Public figures are ordinarily rewarded for what they say, not for what they don’t. Grace is an underrated virtue; gracelessness is an insufficiently acknowledged vice.
For his understated remarks about the CIA and his continued silence about his successor, a salute to George W. Bush — along with hope that, when he leaves office, Obama will follow the example.
Cowboy forever….
(Note: Started this post way-early this morning, but errands and a hike with a visiting daughter gleefully interrupted. Now dark-thirty and cold. A beautiful, sunshine-filled day continued).