It’s an obvious question really, but worth asking, worth considering: How long do we think the administration, the CPA, the UN and whoever else now has a finger in the pie will wait to announce what government, even what sort of government we’ll be handing ‘sovereignty’ over to at the end of June?
What’s the absolute latest you can imagine? A month? A week? Could it be like one of Bill Clinton’s state of the union addresses where they’re fiddling with the small print until a couple hours before showtime?
I’d be surprised if they came up with a plan by the end of this month and I cannot imagine they’d leave it until less than a week before June 30th.
But just step back and look at how crazy this is: we’ve run Iraq for more than a year, spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the whole effort, lost many of our own sons and daughters as well as many Iraqis. And here you have what is arguably the big issue: who you hand the place off to and how you hand it off to them. And it’s left to the last minute, with the powers that be having to ditch almost everything that has come up until this point and start from scratch.
The market in examples for how badly the Bush team has bungled this situation is admittedly glutted. But even if they’re now going for a dime a dozen this is really one to marvel at.
Now, another related point: the increasing velocity and ferocity of war-hawks trying to shift the blame for their own goofs by inventing a new stab-in-the-back theory (nicely patterned on the original one from Weimar Germany) to cushion their consciences from the brunt of recognizing the dire pass to which their own foolishness and reckless zeal have brought their country.
The chief example I’ve seen — though there must be many others — is John Podhoretz’s column in The New York Post from last Friday, May 14th.
The column is a string of accusations. The first is against The New York Times for, according to Podhoretz, blaming the United States, rather than his murderers, for Nick Berg’s death. “The Times,” writes Podhoretz, in concluding this section of his piece, “is leading the mainstream media in turning the United States into the bad guys in Iraq.”
Podhoretz’s evidence is an article in the Times which reports the Berg family’s claims that the Bush administration somehow bears some of the blame for their son’s death.
Now, just as Berg’s death shouldn’t have been cynically exploited by Bush partisans, what his family says shouldn’t be exploited in the other direction. But simply reporting what the family says in a news article hardly seems to merit anything Podhoretz says. What he wants is a black-out on anything the family says — and that in the context of the saturation coverage of the murder itself — because it is politically off-message.
Then there’s the Time magazine cover with an Abu Ghraib image which reads “Iraq: How Did It Come to This?”
After blowing some smoke about the war’s aim of “liberat[ing] 25 million people and rout[ing] Islamic extremists, terrorists and those who thirst for the mass murder of Americans” Podhoretz calls the Time cover “a vile and grotesque slander against every American in uniform in Iraq.”
At length, the column concludes with these four grafs …
So let’s be clear what’s going on here. As we speak, 138,000 Americans are serving under dangerous conditions in Iraq. And our forces in Karbala are fighting against the goons and thugs of Muqtada al-Sadr with some success. They’re risking their lives for freedom and honor and duty and love of country.
And conventional liberal opinion wants them to lose.
Conventional liberal opinion believes that the Abu Ghraib photos are the true meaning of the war, and that Nick Berg is just another victim of callous U.S. policy.
Conventional liberal opinion is actively seeking the humiliation and defeat of the United States in Iraq.
Let’s be a little more clear about what’s going on here. Having led the country perilously close to humiliation and defeat, the architects of the war want to shift the blame for what’s happened to their opponents who either said the whole thing was a mistake in the first place or criticized the incompetence of its execution as it unfolded. They take the blame, the moral accountability, by ‘wishing’ for a bad result. That at least is Podhoretz’s reasoning.
If ever there was an example of moral up-is-downism, this is it. And claiming that their political opponents — liberal, in Podhoretz’s usage here, is just a catch-all — want defeat and humiliation for their country is certainly the most gutterish sort of slander there is.
There’s something almost uncomfortable about watching the mix of desperation, panicked zeal and projection evidenced in Podhoretz’s column. It’s like the pornography of watching someone beg for his life or shift the blame onto someone else when they’ve been caught in the act — with the added twist of spasms of aggression mixed in. But on a broader level, it’s in character. Not for Podhoretz — this isn’t at all directed at him as a person — but for the movement, the crew, he’s part of and is trying to defend.
How’d we get into this? After 50 years of pretty consistently prudential foreign policy, managed mostly on a consensus of bipartisan agreement (yes, there are exceptions, but by and large, true), they decided to bet the national ranch on an idea. Actually it was a series of ideas, wrapped together in an odd tangle that could look like an odd jumble when viewed from outside. The key, however, was betting the national ranch on steep odds.
Only, they weren’t confident the country would get behind such a riverboat gamble. So they lied about what they were doing. They didn’t trust the people — which might be an epitaph we should return to.
Now, what do we expect of people who make reckless gambles with other people’s money? Of people who can’t discipline themselves enough to distinguish between their hopes and reality? What do you expect of that ne’er-do-well relative who’s always hitting you up for a loan because he’s come up with a sure thing?
Do you expect those sorts of folks to take responsibility when things go bad? Or do you expect them to blame others?
Character, alas, really does count.
