Road maps and detours [Bruce Bartlett's Mea Culpa on Iraq]

Washington Times ^ | April 22, 2004 | Bruce Bartlett

[Austin Willard Wright]

The conservative crack-up on Iraq continues.

[Reagan Man]

>>>In short, President Bush often seems to operate like the character from "Alice in Wonderland" who declared, "Sentence first — verdict afterwards."

Bruce Barlett should stick to economics.

Having said that, there are some obvious questions that need asking at the highest levels and some tweaking of the US military planning. PresBush`s overall "strategery" is showing too many holes and that gives his librat opponents endless ammunition to use against him. That hurts Bush`s standing with swing voters and wishy-washy moderates, which in turn allows the liberal establishment to have some success attacking the President's credibility at will.

[RichardW]

The Stratfor article addresses this issue quite well.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1118566/posts?page=1

[iranger]

What a dullard wimp! He obviosly has no grasp for the complexity of the strategy and the number of variables involved.

[JohnGalt]

I didn't know of any conservatives who supported the war to begin with, but it's encouraging to see that the establishment is letting court jesters live a little with just a touch of dissent.

;)

[Austin Willard Wright]

Hee, hee.

[MEG33]

The mods have asked us over and over not to change the original title.How is one to do a search if the title is changed?

[Austin Willard Wright]

I indicated the change by stating (my title) in the headline! If you want to be a "title Nazi" you will have a happy hunting ground among the many pro-war postings on FR who change titles without indicating as such.

BTW, would you like to comment on what Bartlett said?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Quick.....let Jim know that others today are changing titles too. Oh the Humanity!

[Mr Rogers]

Real title - Road maps and detours.

On Monday, the New York Times reported growing numbers of conservatives are turning against President Bush on Iraq. This follows an inarticulate defense of the Iraq operation by him in a press conference last week and growing attacks on our troops. It is now becoming increasingly clear the basic rationale for the war was not well thought through and that postwar planning was deeply flawed at a minimum. These may result from a basic weakness in this White House's policymaking and decisionmaking process.

I have to say my own feelings on the war parallel those of many others who previously supported the war but now feel deep misgivings. Although I don't often write on foreign policy, I felt I had an obligation to take a stand on Iraq before the war started. In a February 2003 column, I reluctantly supported the war because at the time I thought there was credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. With that country ruled by a lunatic dictator with known ties to terrorist groups, I felt President Bush deserved the benefit of the doubt.

Since then, I have been very disturbed by the lack of WMDs. I am not yet convinced Mr. Bush manufactured evidence for their existence as a pretext for war. But I do believe he has fostered a White House culture that contributes to error, by stifling internal debate, a decisionmaking process that seems to shortcircuit research and analysis, and an obsession with loyalty and secrecy that makes the Nixon White House appear a model of openness and transparency.

In this respect, I have been strongly influenced by Ron Suskind's recent book, "The Price of Loyalty," which was based on interviews with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and thousands of internal documents provided by him. That book paints a picture of an administration in which it appears Mr. Bush often makes key decisions with little if any analysis or discussion among those who are to carry out the decisions.

In short, President Bush often seems to operate like the character from "Alice in Wonderland" who declared, "Sentence first — verdict afterwards." Instead of figuring out why and how things should be done before acting, the White House seems to act first and then create ex post facto rationalizations for that decision in lieu of serious deliberation.

Although I claim no inside knowledge of the national security process in this administration, I do know Mr. Suskind and Mr. O'Neill's characterization of its domestic policy operation rings true. While it is conceivable a completely different process operates in the national security arena, I think that is highly unlikely. Presidents establish a style and tone for their White House staff operations and it operates across the board. Therefore, I have every reason to believe the same weaknesses that exist on the domestic side exist within the national security operation as well.

Contrary to what conspiracy theorists imagine, I don't think President Bush ever ordered up invented facts to justify the Iraq war. Rather, I think there was a great deal of what economists call self-selection bias. Facts that confirmed what Mr. Bush wanted to believe tended to filter up to him, while conflicting facts tended to be sidelined.

This sort of thing happens on every issue in every White House. But in this White House, the system of deliberation, debate, analysis and discussion seems unusually weak. As a consequence, there was no way of leveling the playing field, with the result decisions were made on the basis of biased presentations rather than objective analysis.

In previous administrations, one safety valve has been the press. When participants in the decisionmaking felt the president was not fully taking into account certain facts or views, they would be leaked. At least then there was a chance that they would come to his attention. But in this administration there is very little of that, with loyalty and secrecy being enforced to an amazing degree that appears unprecedented.

Moreover, President Bush is, self-admittedly, not a big consumer of news from outside sources. Consequently, alternate ways of communicating facts and views to him are shut down.

Of course, one cannot know whether a more open and honest debate on Iraq would have led to a different result. But I for one would not have supported the war if I thought its principal justification was the liberation of the Iraqi people, which is what the White House now says was its primary mission. Our military exists to defend the nation, not be the world's policeman. If there is a linkage, President Bush has yet to make it.

[MEG33]

I believe if he had read Woodward's book he would find a different opinion on how Bush confers with his cabinet.I have no desire to refight old fights about the war.It is difficult,it is bloody and I hope will be successful.

I still support the war,do not believe I was lied to but rather the intelligence was wrong. I believe we will never discover what happened to the missing WMD that the UN inspectors have no record of being disposed of.I fear there are WMD in Syria.Whether they came from Iraq I don't know.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Bruce Bartlett's Mea Culpa on Iraq (My Headline)

Changing headlines defeats search, causing duplication of posts. Please don't.

You may add comments in brackets or parentheses.

[Mr Rogers]

Although I don't often write on foreign policy...

Good place to stop.

I am not yet convinced Mr. Bush manufactured evidence for their existence as a pretext for war.

Off the deep end! There is overwhelming testimony - even from his enemies - that GWB did NOT fake evidence.

I have been strongly influenced by Ron Suskind's recent book, "The Price of Loyalty," which was based on interviews with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill

More silliness! Says Bush makes decisions without spending a lot of time discussing all possibilities. The horror! Churchill had the same fault.

Although I claim no inside knowledge of the national security process in this administration

Then why write about it?

When participants in the decisionmaking felt the president was not fully taking into account certain facts or views, they would be leaked. At least then there was a chance that they would come to his attention. But in this administration there is very little of that, with loyalty and secrecy being enforced to an amazing degree that appears unprecedented.

Maybe folks DON'T disagree - so they have NO REASON to leak! Maybe Powell & others felt their views HAD been heard...ever thought of that, Bartlett?

But I for one would not have supported the war if I thought its principal justification was the liberation of the Iraqi people, which is what the White House now says was its primary mission.

I would. There is only one chance to cut off the dragon's head of terrorism - and that is to reshuffle the deck and build some sort of democracy in the middle east. I also prefer having marines and soldiers fighting terrorist in Iraq to having terrorists fighting civilians in New York.

[MEG33]

The title reflects the original for the link you provided.

It isn't such an imposition ,is it, to put your title in parentheses? The reason for it is to avoid duplication or to allow someone to find an old article.Surely you cannot be offended when you know the reason for it.

[Valin]

Although I don't often write on foreign policy

Next time resist the temptation.


I have been strongly influenced by Ron Suskind's recent book, "The Price of Loyalty," which was based on interviews with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill

That says it all.

[Steve_Seattle]

"an administration in which it appears Mr. Bush often makes key decisions with little if any analysis or discussion among those who are to carry out the decisions."

I don't believe this for a minute. Critics always try to play it both ways with Bush - one minute he is portrayed as utterly dependent on aides, asking them what to do next, the next minute he is a one-man show, carelessly issuing orders without thought or planning.

[Steve_Seattle]

Bush's position seems to be that the problems in the Middle East are systemic, resulting from a political culture that breeds extremism by stifling democracy, education, freedom, and a modern economy. We took on Iraq because it was the major military machine in the region, controlled by a man whose ambition was to be the pan-Arab leader of opposition to the West. As evidenced by Saddam's two previous wars of aggression, reform in any other country would not be safe as long as he was around, so we had to start there.

[LS]

Hmmm, well, I'm a CONSERVATIVE who supported the war and still do---and I think anyone who didn't is CLEARLY not a conservative.

The most "conservative" thing I can think of is providing for the national defense, and Iraq + AQ= another 9/11, period.

Now, I don't know what Bartlett's problem is, but in light of

1) the recent attempt to use a CHEM BOMB in Jordan (that almost certainly came from Saddam's stash);

2) The Israeli Chief of Staff's comment that we STILL will find WMDs in Iraq because they are there;

3) the IRANIAN government's comment that we would find WMDs in Iraq (because, according to them, we would "put them there"); and the 4) DANISH government's dossier on pre-war WMDs in Iraq, which was compiled independently of the Brits or the U.S., which maintains the causes for war were sound---all this adds up to the fact that the WMDs were there and the war fully justified.

[MEG33]

Well said!(I wasn't aware of the Danish report)

[JohnGalt]

My mistake, I should have said, American conservative.