Good God, can anyone truly be this blind to the facts? The internal dynamics of Iraq matter a good deal more if the US doesn’t install a strong puppet. Well, unless they leave Baath in power, but in that case, what the heck is the point? Expecting the removal of Saddam to increase the stability of the region without a plan for how to stabilize a post-Saddam Iraq is sheer lunacy. Iraq is as fragmented a country as countries come, and it’s altogether likely to fragment into a 3-way civil war, and draw Iran and Turkey into the mix as well, unless someone who understands the social dynamics of Iraq in great detail orchestrates a master plan to hold things together. Or unless the reins of totalitarian power are handed to a dictator more amenable to taking orders from the White House, I suppose, which is probably the most likely outcome. But it puts a lie to all the democracy horseshit we keep hearing.
Argh. If you’re going to expect a peaceful stable democracy to magically spring forth in Iraq, you may as well expect the IRA and the UDL to form a merger while you’re at it. Oh, don’t tell me, let me guess - you don’t think it matters whether there are Catholics or Protestants in Belfast, either? Sheesh.
That’s very much to Bush’s credit. When my wife was a consultant at Stanford Research Institute, her boss Chuck used to boast that he was the dumbest person in his own unit. He was proud of having recruited so many outstanding people. He shared the credit for their good work.
Making this approach work requires a leader who is more interested in the success of the venture than in his own ego. Both Chuck and George Bush are this kind of person.
Gorsnak has it, IMO, essentially right. Regardless of the horrifying (to some) gaps in his knowledge, Bush is not a stupid man. But if we know anything about him by now, it should be that the man doesn’t bother to learn about things he doesn’t care about or has already decided based on faith or ideology. (Stem cells, cloning, global warming, Brazilian ethnicities, etc.)
GWB’s ignorance of the Sunni/Shiite distinction should worry us not because it indicates lack of intellect (IMO, it doesn’t), but because the lack of attention to Iraq’s cultural influences means that he considers them irrelevant. And if so, what does this tell us about the “freedom and democracy for Iraq” rhetoric?
Yes! You’re absolutely right! Pakistan has been very helpful to us by allowing Osama bin Laden to LIVE THERE! Pakistan has been so helpful in the war against terrorism that they haven’t allowed us to pursue fleeing Taliban and Al Qaeda troops who retreated across their borders.
Not the Gen. Tommy “Tampa” Franks has been that interested in the pursuit, just like he wasn’t terribly interested in committing American troops to the battle of Tora Bora. The fact that this man still has a job is testament #1 to Bush’s lack of competence.
Has anyone bothered to read the original source of this allegation?
George Packer writes in the NY Times Magazine article:
Emphasis mine, of course. We have an explicitly liberal columnist touting a third-hand account as proof that Bush doesn’t know anything about the region he has spent most of his presidency contemplating. If december had touted Rush Limbaugh making anti-Clinton hay out of similar hearsay, he would have been pilloried.
Personally, I think two things were probably at work:
[list=1]
[li]Bush was generally aware of the Sunni/Shiite issue, but in this case was indeed hearing new information, as he played the role of the outsider hearing native sources give their account of milennia-old grievances that only an native or a full-time analyst would know off the top of his head. Who among you can give all the arcane details of (say) the Catholic/Protestant divide in Northern Ireland? Even if you’re relatively well read, unless you’re a native or a full-time analyst, you’re sure to voice some misconceptions that would make denizens of the six counties howl with disbelief.[/li]
[li]Bush may have been using the attitude of “explain it to me like I’m a three year old” in order to make sure he fully understood these Iraqi gentlemen’s respective positions. Given the cultural differences, it would be easy for a foreigner to misinterpret careful listening as real ignorance.[/li][/list=1]
Honestly, you all, the eager Bush-bashing pile-on or half-hearted apologetics in this thread really makes me disappointed in you–especially december, whom I thought should know better.
Honestly I am not sure whether to believe the allegation or not. Your response is reasonable. The problem is, whether Bush is aware of the difference between Sunni and Shai Muslims is less relevant IMHO, relative to the complete incompetance he has displayed in running this country. I am often against Republican agendas, that is true, but I am proud to count John McCain amongst my country’s senators. But GWB is simply an arrogant baffoon, and I fear we may pay a heavy price for his inability to lead effectively. Even Clinton (whom I loathed) was savvy, if an evil evil man. I am stunned that the Republican party settled on this horrible little man as their presidential candidate, I am disgusted that the actions of a man like Clinton helped sheppard him into office, and I am frustrated that the Democrats (or anyone else) can’t muster a half-decent challenge to his control over our poor poor country.
Well, for what it’s worth, I just finished reading the article in question, and was about to correct the OP about the nature of the report, but I saw that it had already been done twice. Thirdhand evidence may as well not be evidence at all. But then, the author (Packer) doesn’t hang anything on the claim, either. It’s the fourth-hand account in the column linked by the OP (Kaplan) that does that. Anyways, the fact remains that the Bush Administration’s policy towards what happens in a post-Saddam Iraq is hopelessly naive, unless they’ve got a wicked cool plan they aren’t telling us about - and since they have no reason not to tell us about such a plan, I’d suggest it’s unlikely they’ve got one.
So tell me, supposing Bush knows who 'Ali and Husayn ibn-'Ali were (which, lack of evidence notwithstanding, I’m not particularly confident about), just why should we think he or his advisors are capable of keeping post-war Iraq from exploding into civil war, other than by creating a new totalitarian dictator?
If you read back through my posts you will see that I never particularly seize upon this article at all to support my opinion. As I said, your counter-argument seemed reasonable enough to me (did you read that part, or just skip to the Simon Says). But Bush is still a baffoon, IMHO.
I love it when those who hate Bush yet love Powell run into an uncomfortable situation in which the two agree. “But Bush is pure evil! Powell must have just been pretending to agree! Or… or… he had to, or he’d lose his job!” The idea that maybe, just maybe, Powell genuinely agrees with Bush doesn’t even seem to register.
As to the OP, I would agree that if this account is accurate, it would disappointing that Bush didn’t have a passing familiarity with the cultural make-up of the region, given that the information is very relevant to the feasibility of constructing a democratic and peaceful post-war Iraq. That being said, I wouldn’t consider it tragic if Bush had the good sense to at least find an expert in the region and say, “Hey, this is what I have in mind. Is it possible? How should it be changed given the sentiment in Iraq?” A good leader doesn’t need to know everything, he just needs to make sure that all relevant information is taken into account when a plan is being formed. I don’t need to know how to program in order to design a good game, as long as I make sure the programmers assert that my plans are feasible.
Jeff
wtf? Please explain this analogy to me. There’s plenty of independent evidence pointing to the lack of an intelligent plan for a post-war Iraq, chief of which is the White House’s refusal to tell us what the hell they’re going to do, in spite of the fact that, if they’re to be believed, Saddam’s removal from power will occur within the month.
And, more to the point, I never made a big deal out of Bush’s purported lack of knowledge of Islamic history - my first post in this thread was expressing disbelief at X~Slayer(ALE)'s assertion that the makeup of Iraqi society was irrelevant.
Hey, what you say is very true but does the president of the US personally handle this complicated operation?
Heck no.
He leaves that ponderous operation to people way more knowledgeable. There is already a plan being formulated without Mr Bush’s involvement other than he ordered it. So again, refering back to the OP, Bush’s knowledge of the region doesnt have to be scholarly or even up to date. So long as he has a team that can do that job for him.
Ya, there needs to be a plan, but Bush doesnt have to make it. I’d be more worried if he was trying to formulate a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq. Only then would his ignorance be a detriment.
Well, I agree for the most part with this. Obviously Bush doesn’t need to make the plan. However, one would hope he’d have enough knowledge about the situation to make an informed judgement between alternatives, and I think that it’s at this point that many people have worries, since in the final analysis, the buck stops at his desk. But anyways, that’s not what you said. You said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds a lot like asserting that the US needs no plan at all, but can just go in, topple Saddam, and bugger off. If you weren’t saying that, I withdraw my incredulity, but I can’t see how your first post can be interpreted otherwise, and I think the view it apparently espouses is incredibly dangerous.
Just for the record, there are both Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq.
What I meant was the primary objective is to topple Saddam. Planning for his replacement would be presumptious until that is done.
All one has to do is look at afghanistan. We neither placed a puppet regime in power or buggered off. I dont see why people are neglecting this obvious parallel. There was one vital difference with regard to finding replacement leadership. There were many prime candidates for Afghanistan and as you all know the best ones were identified and killed. I think the Bush team has learned this lesson well especially applying to it to Saddam who has no compunctions about eliminating his enemies. In the Iraq scenario, thee is no clear replacement for Saddam, and if there is, naming him would be marking him with a bullseye.
ugh… its late and my mind is reformulating to have the consistency of mush…
Let me try that again…
The primary obejective is to topple Saddam. Mr Bush is using all of his efforts to get that done. Executing a plan to replace Saddam would be presumptious until Saddam is under control. I already said that Bush’s team was formulating a replacement govt for a post-Saddam Iraq. The details and addendums will be implimented during the final phase of the war. By that time, alliances will be made with rebel factions and opposition groups which would include, in all likelihood, representatives of the Sunni and Shiite population.
Talking to Bush about a post-Sadam govt while Saddam is still in power would be rather fatalistic, dont you think?
…thats it …I’m goin home …renew this battle tomorrow.
Calling the president a buffoon or other name in no way changes a darned thing about our current condition. I’ll agree with all of the Bush bashers that we don’t have the perfect president with an IQ of 200, and maybe he’s not the most sophisticated, but Bush is doing SOMETHING about the world condition, and all of you who are just calling him an idiot aren’t doing anything except using too much of your precious free time on a message board promoting further negativity about our country. I challenge all of you who call Bush an idiot to give me a complete outline of what you would do as president to achieve the complete perfection you desire that isn’t going to exist anyway on this earth no matter how hard you try. I guarantee that none of you straight dope people will solve all the mentioned problems. And remind yourselves that you’ll only make some low salary of about $100K a year if you were president for all the crap and assasination attempts you’ll have to take that is not in no way worth the demands of the job. I’m just sick and tired of seeing and hearing all the Bush criticism and not enough Sadam, or BinLaden, or North Korean president Kim, or Fidel Castro criticism in balance, when bashing those other dictators is what all of us should be doing. So you hate our president, fine. Too bad you don’t realize you could have it a whole lot worse with some other foreign dictator as your leader.
:eek: :mad: :smack: 
:wally :eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :dubious: :smack: ;j :mad: :mad: 