Who's Sorry Now?

It was a pleasant weekend for those of us who have been against the Iraq War from the beginning. The Washington Post had an article on the bitterness and regrets of those in the Bush administration who concocted and ran the war and have now left. Some of them have nightmares. Nothing like the nightmares of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo or the Black Sites, but hey, a few nightmares are progress. Maybe they will have more, and then they will have mental breakdowns and they can experience electroshock therapy -- that would be a nice payback for them. In the New York Times magazine, there was an article about Kanan Makiya, an exiled Iraqi scholar who was a big cheerleader for the war, and who seems to have given Bush and Cheney a rationale that they could use as a cover for their real motives. At the end of the article, there's an interesting interview with Ali Allawi, who was the Minister of Finance in the Iraqi transitional government in 2005 and into 2006. Allawi was opposed to the war, but went to Iraq to try and put Humpty back together again. He failed. And, of course, there's Blackwater. Whoops. Americans have recently gotten a good look at our very own right wing death squad (paid for by us to the tune of 445,000 per soldier, per year), and we know there are more RWDSs where that one came from. And I loved the headline of David "the Pig" Brooks' op-ed in last week's Times, "The Republican Collapse" -- is there a lovelier phrase? I used to send letters to David Brooks asking when the New York Times was going to fire him. He never responded.

All the same, though, the emerging consensus (another vast rightwing conspiracy to my mind) is that everyone's intentions were good, if not great. Makiya, for example, knew all the horrors that Saddam Hussein had committed against the Iraqis and the Iranians, and just wanted to get him out of there, even if the odds, as he calculated them, against actually establishing a stable government were 20-1. He thought Ahmed Chalabi was going to be the Nelson Mandela of Iraq. And the same for Meghan O' Sullivan, who was about THIRTY when the fates of the Iraqis were put into her hands -- she just wanted to help. As for Karl Rove and that Permanent Republican Majority -- well, he didn't mean to hurt anyone -- really, the one who's been hurt here is Karl himself (also the refrain of Clarence Thomas).

What I see here, especially when you add in the Israelis and the Neocons and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, is a perfect storm of opportunism, opportunism compounded of ignorance, greed, self-regard, power-lust, and sheer shallowness. "Opportunism" is when you use someone else for your own ends, thinking that you will pretend to give the other guy what he wants and in doing so, you will get what you want. I think the World Champion Opportunist Award these days goes to those Israelis who ally themselves with the American Rapture people, knowing full well that in Rapture theology, the wholesale conversion of the Jews is the prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. These Israelis will work with people who anticipate another Holocaust -- who hope for it -- in order to get American money and arms for Israel. That is opportunism taken to a new level -- but not that new.

The Iraqi exiles thought they would use the American government and military to get their country back. The Neocons and Israel thought they would use the Americans to get rid of Saddam and remake the Middle East so that Israel would be more secure. Rove thought he would use "war" to entrench his power base. Cheney thought he would use the exiled Iraqis to get access to Iraqi oil fields and to establish an authoritarian presidency in the US. Bush thought he would use everyone to get a sense that he had both avenged his father and outdone him. Tony Blair thought he would use his alliance with Bush to press some of his own programs, like helping Africa and distinguishing Britain from Europe. Rumsfeld thought he would use the war to remake and outsource the army, thereby enriching his friends. Erik Prince thought he would use the American taxpayers to get rich and also to move toward an American theocracy. The religious right thought they would use the war and consequent "patriotism" issues to consolidate, fleece, and militarize their base. The Free Market theorists thought they would use taxpayer money to experiment with privatizing the Iraqi economy. The result is failure and recrimination, not to mention a refusal by almost every one of these people to take responsibility for what they've done. As they see it these days, bad things in Iraq just happened somehow.

Opportunism often looks good on the surface, but it is based on manipulation rather than relationship, and masks an absolute misunderstanding of human nature. What happened with the Iraq war was no mistake and no accident. It grew out of the failure of conservatives, from the time of Ronald Reagan, at least, to understand and accept the necessity of government in a complex and populous society, and therefore to think about what government could and should do. The more they refused to think about it, the less they knew. Reagan, with his smiling soothing phrases and his tone of benign condescension, served as an appealing front man for what the nasty and unlamented Lee Atwater himself called "ruthless ambitions and moral decay". Reagan Republicans thought of government as a mechanism for increasing their own power and wealth. They never accepted that the US has many different regions, ethnicities, and enclaves, all of which have equal claim to citizenship. From at least the 1960s, the Republican Party has worked actively to pit region against region, class against class, and ethnicity against ethnicity, and to reap profits therefrom. Men like Karl Rove came to think habitually in terms of propaganda, manipulation, and deceit.

These were the people Makiya and Chalabi turned to for help against Saddam. These were people who were so cavalier that they didn't bother to read the reports of their own experts about how difficult the aftermath of the invasion would be. Allawi was smarter, though. He says in the Times, "Ahmad Chalabi, Kanan Makiya, all of these people became media stars, but their influence on decision making was next to nothing. I can't believe that a person like Wolfowitz or Cheney or whoever it was in the neocon cabal would allow themselves to be manipulated... They are far too cynical. They have their own agendas. And these agendas were boosted by Iraqis who seemed to be singing from the same song sheet. The Iraqis gave them credibility, gave them substance. But I don't think they were influenced by them."

Various rightwingers maintain that if the Iraq adventure had worked out, we would all be praising the Bush administration. What they don't understand is that it could not have worked out because of how it was conceived and the shallowness of the motives behind it. This was evident in 2003. In fact, it was evident in 2000. When the vote in Florida turned out to be rigged, or at least suspect, Bush and Cheney did, not what honorable men to, but what opportunists do -- they used intimidation (against the vote counters) and influence (on the Supreme Court, notably with Clarence Thomas) to seize what might or might not have been theirs by right (everyone who has read The Best Election Money Can Buy knows that Jeb and Katherine Harris also set up the Florida vote ahead of time, but I think it was in the counting that the real theft took place). Bush could have exerted himself both publicly and privately to make the vote count as scrupulous as possible. He did not. The apple was offered to him and he bit it. He never understood what elections represent in the US -- not seizure of power but acceptance of responsibility -- and so he has never understood his position or his job. His idea and Cheney's idea was that they were going to use their jobs to get what they could for themselves and their powerbase, just as they used the election controversy to get the job. They have surrounded themselves with people of like mind and those who don't think this way have left or been forced out.

The clusterf**k of opportunism that is the last seven years was bound to end in a cluster of fingerpointing and grievance. People hate feeling used and betrayed, even as they are using and betraying others. Remember when Bush expressed his annoyance at the ingratitude of the Iraqis? And have you noted the resentment of the religious right at being the last to know that nobody in the Bush administration actually cares about their agenda? Were the Republicans grateful to Katherine Harris? Nope -- they let her humiliate herself in front of the whole nation. Those Iraqis -- they sure don't show much loyalty to Blackwater. Even Alan Greenspan has done what he can to divorce himself from the very people he sucked up to five years ago.

Is it possible to have no sense of civic responsibility at all? Yes -- that's what Free Market theory, and the last generation of Republican culture is about. It elevates commerce and deal-making above every other human activity, and therefore glorifies opportunism. A generation of coaching by Free Market gurus has robbed Americans of the means of a decent existence.The reason we can't get out of Iraq is that none of the opportunists dares to admit why he or she wanted to make a war there in the first place, and so we, the American people, don't actually know what the goal was and can't ever judge whether it has been achieved. Though Cheney's goal was to secure the oil, he can't admit that to the Iraqis, who don't want to give up the oil. If the Iraqis' goal was to use our military to fight the battle and then take over themselves, they ceded that goal every time they flattered the Americans. If the Israelis consider their existence to be worth every American sacrifice of money, corruption, and human life, they dare not say so. If the military industrial complex really is happy to profit from death and destruction, do they actually pretend to their children that they are human? A lot of PTSD says they do. I could go on.

In order to gain power, the Republicans long ago (and knowingly, thanks, Mr. Atwater and others) handed the citizenry, and themselves, a bill of goods, a set of philosophical and economic ideas that were bankrupt. The citizenry, suckers that we were, bought it because it appealed to their worst selves. The price we have paid and will continue to pay in Iraq for this bad bargain is a steep one, and could break the bank. But if we don't understand how we got here, we could buy it again, because the politicians and the pundits still have it for sale.

Comments

[KRANKY]

Jane....an­other brilliant synopses of the tragedy and collapse of American democracy.
You have the outline for the prologue.
I ask what American citizens and patriots will now do. It is intimidating to to take action for oneself. It could likely land a patriot in jail. As with Paine, who recognized that there bwere many summer soldiers and sunshine patriots, I realize that words seldom replace action.

What does civil peoples do with fascists and bushists?
Thew answer is not pleasant, but these net negative dregs on society will kill EVERYONE before they give up. They are totally unredeemable. They do not compromise, they never bargain in good faith. They look for any opportunity to cheat. They are completely untrustworthy.
Intelligent people know what to do with the bushists.
Now, we only have to have the will to do it.

[HelenIsaacson]

Indeed, the citizenry have been handed "a bill of goods." And now we, the citizenry, find that it is up to us to demand that we be listened to--by Republicans and also by the Democrats who have not yet heard a loud enough voice calling for an end to the war and occupation in Iraq. I hope that all of us who spend time expressing the view that our troops should be brought home now will get off our chairs on October 27 for the End The War Now march. Maybe photos of millions in the streets in cities across America will get some results.

[woodsywizz]

The tag-line, "take government off the backs of the American people" means, "stop obstructing corporations from doing whatever they want", so THEY can ride the backs of the American people. There wouldn't even be seatbelts in cars to this day if it hadn't been made law. And we still build roads without bike lanes, subdivisions without sidewalks wide enough for two baby carriages to pass. A corporation has no children, no soul, no conscience, and it's only duty is to FEED and GROW. THAT's why we need government - to represent and protect us, the people, from global industry. Business is a great servant but a terrible master!

[desitter]

Jane, another great post!

In the WashPost article, what really struck me was the preening narcissism of Meghan O'Sullivan - she wants to forget it all for now and "recover her life", even "pick fruit with her niece", do tell. I wanted to vomit. It was "too early" for the poor dear to talk about Iraq at her cushy new Harvard job. The great mystery is how the country keeps turning up these pathological narcissists and putting them into responsible positions. These people are incapable of shame, guilt, or admitting error. It's pathological. No, worse - it's sociopathic.

-drl

[reedmaker]

drl:

I had the same response to the WaPo article. At first, like Jane, I was happy to hear that at least one Bushie was having nightmares, but then she said that her highest priority in her new post at Harvard is to get some well-earned rest. How can these people live with themselves?! And how much is Harvard paying her to sleep off her exhausting role in the destruction of two nations?!

[Bashonot]

Bravo! Jane...tru­ly the most succinct and pitch-perfect comments I've read in quite some time...We should all respectfully don red robes and walk silently down our Main streets!

[anfractuous]

One day people founded Mullah Nasruddin pouring the remains of his yogurt into the lake.
- Mullah Nasruddin , what are you doing? A man asked.
- I am turning the lake into yogurt, Mullah Nasruddin replied.
- Can a little bit of yeast ferment a whole lake? The man asked while others laughed at Mullah Nasruddin .
- You never know perhaps it might, Mullah Nasruddin replied, but just imagine if it did!
These shameless Iraq apologists are still pouring yogurt into the lake and saying "But just imagine!"

[ipitombi]

Ms. Jane; - You are a genius. Keep it coming.

[MikeDu]

Bang bang bang! You hit the nail squarely on the head! Iraq is the logical result of the Right's notional idea of national non-governance, their long dreamed-of government that was incapable of hindering the profiteers. Reagan famously said he wanted to shrink government to a size where it could be 'drowned in the bath'. Iraq was the neocon right's big test case to bring to life ther ideal of replacing government with 'non-government'. Instead of freedom for profiteers they produced a Frankenstein monster.

What people don't realise is that we're halfway to this Frankenstein monster in our own country as well. Remember California's fake power crisis immediately after Cheney took office? How the borders were sealed to keep us all at the mercy of Big Pharma price gouging? This nation approaching that right-wing dream of a society stripped of all defenses against the profiteers. Is Iraqi-style chaos far behind?

[obalaji]

You are wihut a doub the number one truth teller in Amerikkka, at least in the mainstream. Keep it up.

[dustdevil]

This is a good article but I think it doesn't address one of the most obvious enablers of what has gone wrong in our country. And that is
the media.
I know you depend on news sources for
your livelihood, Jane. But without their manipulations, Bush would not have been elected and we never would have gone to war. And the 911 attacks would not have happened under Howard Dean's presidency. He would have won if the media had not scuttled his campaign. And he would not have chosen Leiberman as a running mate.
We have to look beyond Bush, Cheney and Congress to see who is really controlling our foreign policy. And that is wealthy people who are getting richer off war.
General Smedley Butler had a simple solution to end wars--reduce the salaries
of members of Congress and the Executive offices to that of a military enlisted person during wartime. For those of you who haven't heard of Butler, He was a US Major General who
in his later years realized that all wars were a racket. That the poor did the fighting and dying and the rich got richer during wartime. It says a lot about the humanity of this country that Butler is not recognized as one of this countries greatest heroes.

[woodsywizz]

Gen. Smedley Butler did a lot for this country, but not all of it was peaceful commentary. He led Marines into battle to enforce the Pax Americana in Central America - more of our early Empire-building. So famous was he as an Imperial warrior that the 1930's fascist coup plotters approached him as the one man who could bring the military on board to take over the government. Gen. Smedley Butler refused, and blew the whistle. Somehow, Preston Bush - yes, little boy George's grandfather - escaped treason charges and prison. But he still had financial investments and dealings with Nazi Germany well into 1942! Again escaping treason charges. Not the patriot Butler was...

[godlessclif]

The Fascists thought Smedley Butler was a Caesar
who would make war on his own country. In fact he was a Cincinatus who would fight for his country, and then retire to his farm.

[malcolm37b]

Read "American Dynasty" This has been going on for 100 years.

[Kendo Nagasaki]

Fox News led the media charge to fascism and war.

A big thank you to Bill O'Reilly and Rupert Murdoch.

[perdidodog]

Your posts shine with truth. Thank you.

[Rescisco]

Well done! Excellent post. But I would add that the conservative nonsense of "opportunism compounded of ignorance, greed, self-regard, power-lust, and sheer shallowness" was not something foisted upon a poor and unsuspecting public. Their nonsense appealed to the "opportunism compounded of ignorance, greed, self-regard, power-lust, and sheer shallowness" of the American people. Yes, there is a progressive minority that pricks the conscience of America from time to time, but the reign of error (from Reagan to Bush 43) is (unfortunately) a reflection on the civic ethic of this age and the popular sentiment that energized it. But a new age is on the horizon, or so we may hope!

[knowBuddhaU]

Yes, it's all those damn (insert name of outgroup)'s fault.

Do you think only Republicans were opportunistic in this? If not, then where are the Democrats in your account? Your fine writing would have more of a ring of truth to it if you had included any of the sorry Democrats who enabled Bush. Do a search on this page: the first occurrence of "Dem" is in the name of the first commenter.

This has the sound of one hand clapping to the choir.

In particular, what were the goals of the Democrats through all this? What was HRC's goal in her Iraq war vote? What were Lieberman's goals? And since then, why did Pelosi immediately take impeachment off the table?

Reversing the biases of your opponents gives only a false sense of progress, when in reality that's what makes the wheel of samsara go 'round.

I trust Kucinich. The rest scare me, esp. HRC. She's so corporate! Her problem with the war is the way it's being done, not that it's blatantly illegal. Obama? Too militaristic. Edwards? Still too militaristic.

Who expects the Done-Nothing Democratic Party to end the war and kick the war habit? How long do we expect to go on living by the sword without paying for it in blood?

[Zenobius]

Well written, but then Jane is one of the top fiction writers in mainstream fiction.

Still, this is not that new. The saying that victory has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan, was invented long before the Bush administration. Hopefully, we can turn things around, but who knows? The Democratic candidates appear to want to hang on in Iraq; Hillary must owe debts to a lot of people for all that campaign funding she has collected.

[godlessclif]

"A war is won or lost before the first shot has been fired."...­Sun Tzu the art of war.

This war was lost in 1998 when PNAC planned it and
sent the stupid letter to Clinton.

These are the retards who signed that letter

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

[TellitLikeItIs]

Jesus H. Christ!! With a list of names like those, what more need be said?

[DonL]

One more point, made by several others. What total morons can possibly run by claiming to hate government and wanting to kill it? What total morons would elect such people?

[godlessclif]

It is like making someone who hates computers
President of IBM. What business would he take
IBM into? Bankrupsy.