Who's on first.........

In the past few days we have witnessed a bizarre struggle as it would appear that various forces are at work to select a new government of Iraq that will rule the country until elections occur. Watching this and seeing the events unfold, for instance of the struggle for who will be prime minister and president (The New York Times > Washington > Selecting a Leader: Surprising Choice for Premier of Iraq Reflects U.S. Influence), one has to wonder what is really going on.

Following these events, it seemed that some of the people that have been selected started to operate on their own, without US approval. As an example, the Iraqi Foreign Minister was flying to the UN apparently asking them to do something, or at least support something at that the US was not in favor of seeing happen(Yahoo! News - Iraqi Foreign Minister Off to UN, Seeks Sovereignty). The US responded to that by agreeing to some form of compromise in advance of the meeting. I have to wonder reading all of this is how much of it is real.

I mean this is, afterall, a group of people running the US administration who are trying to ban camera phones so that bad news cant get back to the US media; who won't let reporters circulate freely; who write to editors and ask them not to use information from unofficial sources. Is this really the kind of operation that would let the Iraqis run free and clear and do whatever they wanted? Hardly; it seems much more likely with the information control we have seen in other areas that what we are really seeing is a careful manipulation of the news to appease the Iraqi people. Not that I disagree with the goal of appeasing the Iraqi people. I don't think this will work, however.

The reason I don't thing this will work is that the people they're using for this circus are too well known. First there was Chalabi and even if he is no longer in the picture everyone in Iraq knows what he is, probably better than our own people and certainly better than the New York Times. Likewise when people who have had long associations with the CIA look like they suddenly become totally independent it is very hard for anyone to believe. Certainly the Iraqis are going to greet this with major skepticism. So is this really going to work? Well, who knows of course, but it seems that this is just another failed little circus that they're trying to push by, in this case the Iraqi people more than the American people. Although certainly it doesn't hurt if the American people buy it as well.

As there is growing concern about how long we will have stay in Iraq, the media's recurring portrayal of these events as the beginning of stable indepemdence for the Iraqi people as they begin to control their own government serves the US administration. If it were true that would be great. Although it wouldn't be so great if they became a Shi'ite fundamentals state. That is somewhat of a different story, however. For now, seeing that the Iraqis are taking charge and working together would be a step in the right direction. It's just hard to believe it is really happening.

They almost said they had blood on their hands.......

I have been waiting for this a long time and really didn't think that I would ever see it. The New York Times has finally admitted that its reporting leading up to the Iraq war left something to be desired. Well, that is a bit unfair they really were hard on themselves, not too hard mind you, but I had to admire their candor. More details of the surprising self-excruciation can be found here:


The New York Times > International > Middle East > From the Editors: The Times and Iraq

While I'm glad to see this, if leaves something to be desired.

First the good part. This had to be hard, very hard for the Times to do. No one likes to admit they are wrong, and to do it in a public forum (even page 10 of a public forum) is really difficult. And they didn't gloss over their failings. They admitted that a number of their articles were written without an appropriate degree of skeptical analysis of the sources of material, sources that now are seen to be likely very flawed. Well, they're right. They should have known better and they should have applied some basic standards to assure that they could verify information from sources that were clearly biased. They recognized that, admitted it was wrong and said they will continue to try to correct any errors that may have resulted. They also admitted to putting the limited critical looks at their other articles in less than prominant places in the paper. A really surprising degree of self-criticism for any institution. So what, in my opinion, is missing?

Two things really should be there and aren't. First, while the Times may have admitted their mistakes to a large degree, no one has apparently been held accountable. They said it was the fault of the editiors. Fair enough, at least they arent blaiming it totally on the lowest people in the food chain. But to the best of my knowledge, none of the reporters nor none of the editors have been fired or demoted. Is no one responsable for their actions (or lack of) anymore?

Lastly. they didn't acknowledge the consequences of their failings. These articles played a major role in convincing the American public that large amounts of weapons of mass destruction were being developed in Iraq for potentially surprise use on the US. Given the time in which these articles appeared and the source (the venerable NY Times, liberal media outlet for the ages) these stories helped to create a war frenzy that "justified" the invasion of Iraq. As we look on that event now, many or even most people would agree that it wasn't worth it. There was no immediate threat, and the invasion and ongoing occupation has had terrible consequences for so many. For all of us it has damaged the war against out true enemy, terrorism, and the reputation of our country in the world. It has led to the recruitment of additional terrorist who will likely strike at us in the future. It has created an unstable Iraq that will likely serve as a hotbed of fundamentalism. It has cost vast sums of money which will hamstring our economy for the near to medium term. But apart from those abstract failings, it has brought death or suffering to thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis and all of their families. And while this current little correction is welcome, it isnt enough to wash the blood off their hands. They have promised us more on this topic, let's hope they deliver.

May 21, 2004

May 21, 2004
 

Well, I learned something in writing my first blog entry that I hadn't realized.  What I learned is to never promise to write something in the next blog entry unless you basically you have it written.  In the first entry I promised to write something about Rumsfeld in the next entry.  I shouldn't have done that.  The reason being that I was kept from writing anything because I couldn't bear to think of writing something about Rumsfeld.  But I had to do it eventually so here goes. 

 

Im having difficulty in thinking about Rumsfeld in some sense because he's an enigma.  It's not that he is stupid in the same sense that the others are.  On the other hand he clearly just doesn't get it.  We'll come back to that a bit later.  So what do we know about Rumsfeld?  First we know that he was involved in the Vietnam War.  I could be very curt and to say that that's enough.  But let's look at beyond that. 

 

His next major entry in public life was as CEO of Searle.  One could expect that that would require a certain amount of of competence.  In fact it probably does, and as I said before he probably isn't at the level of stupidity that the others are.  So what did he really do it Searle.  There are two versions of this.  One is that he used political influence to bring to market aspartame which is a dangerous product.  The other version is that he used political power to bring to the market aspartame, a useful product.  I don't at this point know which is true and will not get into the issue of whether or not aspartame is a hazardous product or not.  Fact is it is on the market and I use it.  However, I think that doesn't change the fact that the reason it's on the market it is because of his political influence and not because of any other reason.  I think if you were to ask even his closest supporters whether aspartame came to market because he used his political juice or because he used his intrinsic knowledge of neurochemistry to prove it was safe there wouldn't be much a question as to what the answer was.  So his major accomplishment was using political influence to license a product in the market and make a lot of money for himself.  Fine enough and I wouldnt personally criticize him for that.  However, it doesn't really make him competent to do what he is doing now.

 

So why is he having these issues.  If you recall years ago when Nixon first went to China people in this country were shocked that the Chinese leadership was so old.  About as old as Rumsfeld is now.  It was explained that this was the reason China was so isolated from the rest of theworld.  Out of touch with the rest of the world.  And perhaps that's really the problem. 

 

The world we live in now is very different from the world that he grew up in and the world that he understood how to deal with.  Rumsfeld might have been a very good Secretary of Defense in 1965 or 1970 but not in 2000.  The reason is that he just doesn't understand that the world is fundamentally changed from a world that he grew up in.  He grew up with his way of thinking predicated upon a great struggle between great nations.  He's probably been able to modify that a bit to bring in smaller nations that we have had to deal with as well.  But he seems incapable of grasping that were aren't fighting against a small nation or a large nation.  We are  fighting against ideology that rather than destroying by invading Iraqi we are supporting.  For him the new way of looking at things was that we could attack a country with a smaller army and more focused army than we had done in thepast.  But, that's far far below the level of innovation needed to deal with fighting a political ideal.  So while Rumsfeld felt we were dealing with the problems facing us an innovative way he was in fact dealing with yesterdays with problems in a new and innovative way.  This is very apparent from the recent developments. 

 

Most of the advice I’ve seen on damage control from people involved in dealing with difficult situations in political or incorporate environments said after the initial release of pictures of Iraqi prisons that it was important to get everything out as quikly as possible because it would come out eventually.  That wasn't what they did, however.  They decided they could keep the pictures hidden.  They could only have done that if they thought that they somehow had control of the situation.  That tells me that Rumsfeld  doesn’t  have of much of an understanding of digital mediam, e-mail and personal factors involved in the situtation situation.  Personal factors include a lot of people at very low levels who think they're going to get the blame for something they didn't feel totally responsible for.  So they're going to lash out and try to blame others and that can mean releasing things.  We combine that with the fact that the digital media makes these images pervasive and its pretty clear that the pictures would appear.  But Rumsfeld didn’t see that so I can only assume that's because he doesn't understand world we live in it all.  He doesn’t understand e-mail, he doesn't understand digital media and he doesn't perhaps even understand human nature.  All that adds up to someone who perhaps isn't stupid in the way that I think Cheney in Bush are but someone who's unable to deal with the complex world we live in.

05/09/04

On the way back from London and have been thinking about the most recent events from Iraq. The English papers have such a way with words, probably due to their strong but oddly limited sense of freedom of the press. There is a big article in one of the English papers titled "Sorry Mr. Bush, this is your America". A way with words indeed. A keen sense of ironic understatement as well. Or at least I would have said so had the whole prisoner torture debacle story surfaced a few weeks ago. Now I’m not so sure.

It would be easy to demonize Bush and company. Lots are doing this by now including the above-mentioned article. But is it really true? I had honestly thought so for a long time, however, I am not nearly so sure now.

For as long as I watch the current administration I cant help but come to the conclusion that they arent necessarily evil or diabolical. I think they are all just really, really stupid. Extraordinarily, clueless, incompetent people that are in so far over their head they cant even imagine where the top is anymore. The "Peter Principle" gone global.

It really is the only thing that makes sense at this point. I know all the other theories, both from their supporters and their detractors. But the only plausable reasons I can imagine for their policies and activities are that their supporters are right, they honestly thought for instance that we would be welcomed into Iraq with flowers and kisses for bringing a new democracy to Iraq and a new age of Democracy and reason to the Arab world. I think they really believed that. They werent paying lip service to it while really looking for oil or contracts for Halliburton. They really believed that something would happen that any reasonable, thinking person realized simply wasn’t possible.

Lets look at the cast of characters. Lets start with Bush himself. About the best people say about him is that he isn’t really dumb, he just sounds that way because he doesn’t speak well in public. There is absolutely no reason to believe that is true. It isnt that he just can’t give speeches to big crowds. Even in one on one interviews or answering questions it is apparent that he doesnt have one single clue as to the world around him. He can’t remember stuff, he can’t hear something and critically analyse and intelligently respond to it. He is a beta minus at best. And he is the leader of the pack from what I can tell. What of the others then?

Let me start with Colin Powell. The reason I want to start with him is because I just can’t figure him out and so I dont have much to say about him. He obviously is a bright guy and he has obviously disagreed with the rest of them on a lot of the major failings. But he stays and I can’t figure out why. Maybe he feels obligated to try to minimize the damage the other idiots do to the world. A noble cause to be sure but a failed one. He would do more good, at least at this point with a complete hissy fit resignation, citing all of their failings and the immeasureable damage that these people have done to the reputation of the US Army with the torture disaster. October would be a good time for that. The army is an institution he truely loves. That was apparent from the speech he gave at his retirement from the army. Well, these people he works for have now dragged the reputation of that institution down into the gutter with the worst kind of barbarians, thugs and criminals and it will be a generation at least before it recovers and once again will be held in any more esteem than a bunch of mob thugs (my apologies to the mob thugs, they at least only do work like that for business, not for fun) in the eyes of anyone in this country and even more so abroad. At some point Mr. Powell is going to have to make a decision about what the meaning of his life will be, and what he would like people to think he believes in.

Next lets consider the vice-president. Ive seen all the jokes, and well, they’re damn funny some of them. I love the one with a picture of Bush and Cheney with Bush talking and Cheney drinking a glass of water. The caption goes something like "VP Cheney shows a new trick by drinking a glass of water while Bush talks." Yea, its funny, but why do people think that. Why to people have this view of Cheney as this super-intelligent modern day Machiaveli. Not from anything he has done, that’s for sure. Okay, he was a congressman from some state with like 30,000 people. BFD. We all know that any fool can become a congressman and many have. Okay, then there was his role as George I's Secretary of Defense during the first war for Iraqi independence. Near as I can tell most of his reputation as a genius comes from Woodward’s book describing him as the mastermind behind that war. I don’t believe that for a second. First, he was likely the source for most of the stuff in Woody's book. I could end here, but there is so much more.

At the time I recall the articles in the Post about how John Sununu was using government planes to go to the dentist and stuff. Well, that was it for John-boy and the Washington parlor game came became who ratted-out Sununu. One of the prime candidates was then Secretary of Defense Cheney. The reason cited: he was angry that Sununu wouldn’t let him on Air Force 1 when they were all going someplace during the Gulf War. It isn’t like he put him on the Shuttle or something (at least I think not) but no AF1. And this was during the war he masterminded? What is wrong with this picture? Then there is the Halliburton experience. Again, people say "Oh, he was the CEO of Halliburton, thats a real big company" as if that means he is smart. Details of some shareholder's opinion can be found in their suit against him about accounting practices. Then there is the asbestos liability problem. Yes, Im aware of the conspiracy theories regarding the Bush family concerning that deal, but maybe he was just stupid. Arg, enough for today. The next one to explain is Rumsfeld. Talking about this has taken too much out of me to talk about Rummy. It is too depressing and frightening. I need to regain my strength before discussing Rumsfeld.