Addict (drugaddict) wrote,
Addict
drugaddict

Slate Article: What a Moronic Presidential Press Conference!

*war stories*
What a Moronic Presidential Press Conference!
It's clear Bush doesn't understand Iraq, or Lebanon, or Gaza, or …
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2006,

Among the many flabbergasting answers that President Bush gave at his
press conference on Monday
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html>, this
one—about Democrats who propose pulling out of Iraq—triggered the
steepest jaw drop: "I would never question the patriotism of somebody
who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has
everything to do with understanding the world in which we live."

George W. Bush criticizing someone for not understanding the world is
like … well, it's like George W. Bush criticizing someone for not
understanding the world. It's sui generis: No parallel quite captures
the absurdity so succinctly.

This, after all, is the president who invaded Iraq without the slightest
understanding <http://www.slate.com/id/2079678/> of the country's ethnic
composition or of the volcanic tensions that toppling its dictator might
unleash. Complexity has no place in his schemes. Choices are never
cloudy. The world is divided into the forces of terror and the forces of
freedom: The one's defeat means the other's victory.

Defeating terror by promoting freedom—it's "the fundamental challenge of
the 21^st century," he has said several times, especially when it comes
to the Middle East. But here, from the transcript of the press
conference, is how he sees the region's recent events:

       What's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the
       violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all
       groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of
       democracy.

   What is he talking about? Hamas, which has been responsible for much
   of the violence in Gaza, won the Palestinian territory's
   parliamentary elections. Hezbollah, which started its recent war
   with Israel, holds a substantial minority of seats in Lebanon's
   parliament and would probably win many more seats if a new election
   were held tomorrow. Many of the militants waging sectarian battle in
   Iraq have representation in Baghdad's popularly elected parliament.

   The key reality that Bush fails to grasp is that terrorism and
   democracy are not opposites. They can, and sometimes do, coexist.
   One is not a cure for the other.

   Here, as a further example of this failing, is his summation of Iraq:

       I hear a lot about "civil war"… [But] the Iraqis want a unified
       country. … Twelve million Iraqis voted. … It's an indication
       about the desire for people to live in a free society.

   What he misses is that those 12 million Iraqis had sharply divided
   views of what a free society meant. Shiites voted for a unified
   country led by Shiites, Sunnis voted for a unified country led by
   Sunnis, and Kurds voted for their own separate country. Almost
   nobody voted for a free society in any Western sense of the term.
   (The secular parties did very poorly.)

   The total number of voters, in such a context, means nothing. Look
   at American history. In the 1860 election, held right before our own
   Civil War, 81.2 percent of eligible citizens voted—the
   second-largest turnout ever
   <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php>.

   Another comment from the president: "It's in our interests that we
   help reformers across the Middle East achieve their objectives." But
   who are these reformers? What are their objectives? And how can we
   most effectively help them?

   This is where Bush's performance proved most discouraging. He said,
   as he's said before, "Resentment and the lack of hope create the
   breeding grounds for terrorists." This may or may not be true. (Many
   terrorist /leaders/ are well-off, and, according to some studies
   <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812973380/sr=1-1/qid=1156277806/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7805717-5672112?ie=UTF8&s=books>,
   their resentment is often aimed at foreign occupiers.) In any case,
   what is Bush doing to reduce their resentment?

   He said he wants to help Lebanon's democratic government survive,
   but what is he doing about that? Bush called the press conference to
   announce a $230 million aid package. That's a step above the
   pathetic $50 million that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had
   offered the week before, but it's still way below the $1 billion or
   more than Iran is shoveling to Hezbollah, which is using the money
   to rebuild Lebanon's bombed-out neighborhoods—and to take credit for
   the assistance.

   As for Iraq, it's no news that Bush has no strategy. What did come
   as news—and, really, a bit of a shocker—is that he doesn't seem to
   know what "strategy" means.

   Asked if it might be time for a new strategy in Iraq, given the
   unceasing rise in casualties and chaos, Bush replied, "The strategy
   is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and dreams,
   which is a democratic society. That's the strategy. … Either you
   say, 'It's important we stay there and get it done,' or we leave.
   We're not leaving, so long as I'm the president."

   The reporter followed up, "Sir, that's not really the question. The
   /strategy/—"

   Bush interrupted, "Sounded like the question to me."

   First, it's not clear that the Iraqi people want a "democratic
   society" in the Western sense. Second, and more to the point,
   "helping Iraqis achieve a democratic society" may be a /strategic
   objective/, but it's not a /strategy/—any more than "ending poverty"
   or "going to the moon" is a strategy.

   Strategy involves /how/ to achieve one's objectives—or, as the great
   British strategist B.H. Liddell Hart put it, "the art of
   distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of
   policy." These are the issues that Bush refuses to address
   publicly—what means and resources are to be applied, in what way, at
   what risk, and to what end, in pursuing his policy. Instead, he
   reduces everything to two options: "Cut and run" or, "Stay the
   course." It's as if there's nothing in between, no alternative way
   of applying military means. Could it be that he doesn't grasp the
   distinction between an "objective" and a "strategy," and so doesn't
   see that there might /be/ alternatives? Might our situation be that
   grim?

   /Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for *Slate*. He can be
   reached at war_stories@hotmail.com <mailto:war_stories@hotmail.com>./

   Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2148197/


Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments