According to this article GWB did not know that Sunni’s and Shiites make up the Iraqi population.
Mr. Kaplan was referencing an article from the NY Times Magazine by George Packer, which I do not have access to.
Is it possible that the man who insists that he has fully anayzed the Middle East situation, and insists that the final decision for war rests in his, not the UN’s, hands–is it possible that he doesn’t know the difference between Sunni’s and Shiites? Is it possible he doesn’t understand the complex political/religious structure in that part of the Mid-East?
I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, George W. Bush is not a man who has the capacity for the presidency. He has no intellectual curiosity yet he is very stubborn in his ways. He does not understand the history of the Mid-East nor the culture. If he did, he would recognize that he personifies the worst character traits in Mid-Eastern society–essentially, diplaying the I-am-right-and-you-are-wrong-and-I-don’t-need-you-anyways attitude. In a society with very strong familial ties and a clan culture you will see that such an attitude brings about ostracism for any individual in that society.
When Clinton struck Kosovo I was outspoken against his stance. Although I was a strong Clinton fan, I thought that that strike was unjustified for many reasons. However, I trusted that Clinton was intelligent enough to understand the complexities of the region. I know, however, that I understand the Mid-East much better than Bush. I grew up in the Mid-East and know many people from the region–from Morocco to Pakistan. You can’t imagine how far off target Bush is on his analysis of the situation.
This is OP is not about whether or not a war with Iraq is justified. My question is this: is there any reason we, intelligent, educated, and informed individuals should believe that George W. Bush has the mental capacity or the personality to wage a successful war (one that minimizes civilian deaths and damage to the US during the war and in the aftermath) against Iraq, to manage a post-Saddam Iraq, to keep terrorist sentiment from re-igniting, or to fully analyze the political/ethnic landscape that we are going to drop our boys and girls in.
Bush has taken the trouble to surround himself with very able, very experienced foreign policy and military experts, such as Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, etc. Bush deserves criticism for his not knowing about the Sunnis and Shiites, but I think the strength of his team will lead to good decision-making.
Could it be possible that Mr Bush view the primary and urgent problem with Iraq mostly is due to Saddam being a totalitarian despotic dictator and that the political/religious implications of having sunnis and shiites wont amount to a hill of beans while Saddam is in power?
Mr Bush’s overall command of the political landscape of post-Saddam Iraq would only be questionable if the US has plans of colonizing or making Iraq a puppet republic. The US has no such intentions. Mr Bush wants Saddam out of Iraq. What Iraqis do with Iraq after that is accomplished should be Iraq’s concern alone. The US may help make sure that a stable govt is formed but it should not have a hand in its policies and constitution.
So whether or not there are Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is immaterial since they are the ones who will determine for themselves what will happen to Iraq AFTER the US gets rid of Saddam.
december, those people you have mentioned as “very able and very experienced” are at each others’ throats with nobody in overall charge, while the world’s disdain and fear are ever-increasing. It also would be more honest of you to say that Cheney packed the staff with people who would see things his way without all that annoying debate stuff - even Powell has had to pretend they’re right to avoid total marginalization.
You say the “team” will lead to “good decision-making”? Good God, man, it’s been over 2 years now. When “will” this “team” start making good decisions? Right after you stop kidding yourself?
(Note to all: Expected answer from december will be in one of his favorite styles of dishonesty: Lame joke, lengthy but irrelevant cite, or simply ignoring it entirely).
Note, too, while you’re at it, that Kaplan has been pretty strongly on the pro-war side until now. This isn’t the damned liberal media again.
Many of us were saying these things about Bush during the campaign. Only now are the consequences becoming clear to some - and we’re scared as hell of him.
The April Atlantic Monthly has as its cover story The Mind of George Bush. But my copy seems to be blank inside!
(rimshot)
Written by Richard Brookhiser, a senior editor at National Review.
Not saying I agree with what it says, or that I like the guy any more having read it, but just wanted to point out that it presents one possible theory as to what makes this guy tick.
What is there to defend? Was it really overly important to know in great and masterful detail the socio-political implications of the tribal differences in Afghanistan? Heck, no! We kicked Taliban butt so that we can get at Al Qaeda terrorist leaders. They sorted themselves out. (or are still sorting themselves out)
In Iraq its even simpler, We get Saddam. Why is knowing which are sunnis and which are shiites a factor in that equation?
My answer: No. I’ve said it before, President Bush is a baffoon, who I expect history will eventually rate amongst the worst US presidents. And I’m not just limiting this observation to Bush’s military agenda but also to his economic and social agenda, which are in ruins, as far as I am concerned. Our economy is spiraling down the toilet, our international standing is being ruined, we are relaxing standards on clean air and polution. This “war” is nothing more than “sleight of hand”, distracting us with one hand so we won’t see what is going on in the next.
I am not of Middle Eastern decent, and I can certainly see what a disaster Bush is leading us to with this stupid Iraqi war.
Powell, I will grant you, is a capable and rational man, although I suspect his prestige is being tarnished by his association with this arrogant president. As for the rest, they merely appear to be syncophants to me.
During the campaign, Bush was asked to identify five world leaders, and missed 4 out of the 5 IIRC. Everyone had a good laugh at his expense.
One of the ones he missed was Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Well, as you know, despite being a Muslim country, Pakistan has been a surprisingly strong ally in the war on terror, and they just helped us capture Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, “the kingpin of Al Qaeda.” Apparently Bush learned what he needed to know when he needed to know it.
So, maybe you’re making too much fuss about Bush’s current ignorance of the Shiite/Sunni dichotomy.
But here’s the deal–someone who voted for Bush was voting for his leadership, not for his Cabinet. His team is obviously composed of intelligent people but their morals and interests are highly questionable. Is he enough of an intellectual powerhouse to absorb their views, inquire into the subject at hand, and then make an objective decision on his own? I think it would be laughable to suggest that he can hold his own in a conversation with his very own Cabinet.
<side note>
I heard many rumors late last year that Bush had told Tony Blair that the problem with the French is that they don’t have a word for entrepreneur. Is this true? It sounds like a joke but who knows?
</side note>
Bush has taken the trouble to surround himself with very able, very experienced foreign policy and military experts, such as Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, etc. Bush deserves criticism for his not knowing about the Sunnis and Shiites, but I think the strength of his team will lead to good decision-making.**
The problem is not in the team but in the leader himself. While he may be getting good advice, a team still needs a good leader and Dubya isn’t that type of leader. His record of governship in Texas for 6 years proves that. It is spectacularly lackluster.
And when, do you think, might Mr. Bush need to know something about the political, social and religious makeup of Iraq. Before implementing a plan to invade Iraq and establish a military occupation with the aim of working with Iraqi elements toward a democratic Iraq, or sometime after the plan is underway? (HINT: Look for the italicized portion of my question.)
I’m so embarrassed by our president. I don’t care if he doesn’t know the difference between the Sunnis/Shiites…he could at least do a better job at hiding his ignorance. The “Golly gee, I didn’t know that!” stuff is cute for five years olds. Not cute for presidents of the United States.
