Evasive Maneuvers
Yesterday, Bush made the striking announcement that full withdrawal from Iraq would be up to "future presidents and future governments of Iraq." This statement opened up a new chapter in Bush’s strange relationship with Iraq. Bush wants to have it both ways: he has staked his entire presidency on the Iraq affair, yet simultaneously wants to avoid taking responsibility for it.
Punting the crucial decision about withdrawal to future presidents was only the most recent in a long list of evasions. Bush has consistently presented the war and occupation as an action on behalf of Iraqis, and made the United States appear the servant of Iraqis. Hence his claim that it is up to Iraqis to decide when the US withdraws, it is after all about them not about the US. Many have noticed that this inverts the real relationship of power – the Iraqis have about as much say over how long occupation will last as they did over whether the US invaded in the first place. Their government is so dependent upon US cash and security provision that, even if we suspended belief for a moment and considered it properly representative, the Iraqi regime will never call for the US to leave.
Even more, it is not just that the real relationship of power is inverted, it is also that Bush attempts to absolve himself of the responsibility to make the all important decision. He presents the situation in a way that side-steps being held to account by the American public, because he claims to be accountable to the Iraqi public, despite the absence of any real mechanisms by which Iraqis could hold him to account.
Bush has also attempted to evade responsibility by consistently changing the terms on which the Iraqi venture is evaluated. According to the LATimes’ assessment of Bush’s speech, ‘The president's series of speeches reflect a twofold White House campaign: to lower expectations and at the same time hold out prospects for success.’ The lowering of expectations is a way of trying to side-step being held to account. It is not surprising that, whenever pressed on the invasion of Iraq, Bush falls back on the ‘brutal dictator’ rationale. In Bush’s words ‘The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.’ The removal of a brutal dictator is generally is seen as the supreme moral act by an ethically motivated statesman. However it is actually a limited and minimal goal usually trotted out to buttress a policy unable to achieve anything else. Its rhetorical content is effectively to say ‘well at least Saddam is gone, how can you argue with that?’ This verbal bait and switch is a way of dodging the real question. Bush wants to avoid being held to account on terms he himself established – liberation of Iraqis, improvement of their everyday life, exportation of democracy, spread of freedom throughout the world. In consistently answering questions about civil war and reconstruction paralysis, Bush is forced to admit that the democratization of Iraq is a sham. But by engaging in a publicity blitz to lower expectations, Bush attempts to avoid accountability by turning failures into successes.
What’s striking about Bush’s recent statement, then, is just how far he is willing to go to avoid those decisions that would draw him out as the responsible actor. By adding that future presidents, not just Iraqi governments, will be making the final decision, Bush is engaging in an especially desperate evasive maneuver. Essentially he is responding to criticisms by saying ‘you cannot call this a failure because at some future date it might still be a success’. This is not so much letting history be the judge as it is deflecting attention from his own role in creating and maintaining the situation. He does not so much want a piece of history as seek to avoid the burdens of being a part of it.
These evasions are indeed calculated, but they are not part of a concerted plan by which ulterior motives are pursued so much as a sign of political desperation. As Michael O’Hanlon said, in the New York Times, ‘I also don't think [Bush] has enough new to say’. Besides practically bimonthly speech tours on Iraq, and publicity stunts dressed up as a military operations, Bush doesn’t actually have anything substantial to say about Iraq. He is treading water until he gets out of office. One gets the sense Bush would just as soon prefer not to be president anymore, but since he is, he is doing what he can to stay afloat politically.
The Time and effort Bush puts into the Iraq is beyond anything he invests in American society. So long as Bush is able to focus attention on Iraq, no matter how badly things look there, it is better for him than allowing the full light of public scrutiny to fall on his complete inattention to and visionless appraisal of American problems. Bush seems more comfortable presenting himself as the virtual representative of Iraqis than as the real representative of Americans. Against this Bush argues that "We can do more than one thing at a time.” But the more he insists, the more hollow his administration sounds. This, perhaps, is the reason why Bush is caught in the strange paradox of trying avoid responsibility for Iraq yet constantly pushing it center stage. He may have no new ideas for what to do in Iraq, but he has even less stomach for America.
Punting the crucial decision about withdrawal to future presidents was only the most recent in a long list of evasions. Bush has consistently presented the war and occupation as an action on behalf of Iraqis, and made the United States appear the servant of Iraqis. Hence his claim that it is up to Iraqis to decide when the US withdraws, it is after all about them not about the US. Many have noticed that this inverts the real relationship of power – the Iraqis have about as much say over how long occupation will last as they did over whether the US invaded in the first place. Their government is so dependent upon US cash and security provision that, even if we suspended belief for a moment and considered it properly representative, the Iraqi regime will never call for the US to leave.
Even more, it is not just that the real relationship of power is inverted, it is also that Bush attempts to absolve himself of the responsibility to make the all important decision. He presents the situation in a way that side-steps being held to account by the American public, because he claims to be accountable to the Iraqi public, despite the absence of any real mechanisms by which Iraqis could hold him to account.
Bush has also attempted to evade responsibility by consistently changing the terms on which the Iraqi venture is evaluated. According to the LATimes’ assessment of Bush’s speech, ‘The president's series of speeches reflect a twofold White House campaign: to lower expectations and at the same time hold out prospects for success.’ The lowering of expectations is a way of trying to side-step being held to account. It is not surprising that, whenever pressed on the invasion of Iraq, Bush falls back on the ‘brutal dictator’ rationale. In Bush’s words ‘The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.’ The removal of a brutal dictator is generally is seen as the supreme moral act by an ethically motivated statesman. However it is actually a limited and minimal goal usually trotted out to buttress a policy unable to achieve anything else. Its rhetorical content is effectively to say ‘well at least Saddam is gone, how can you argue with that?’ This verbal bait and switch is a way of dodging the real question. Bush wants to avoid being held to account on terms he himself established – liberation of Iraqis, improvement of their everyday life, exportation of democracy, spread of freedom throughout the world. In consistently answering questions about civil war and reconstruction paralysis, Bush is forced to admit that the democratization of Iraq is a sham. But by engaging in a publicity blitz to lower expectations, Bush attempts to avoid accountability by turning failures into successes.
What’s striking about Bush’s recent statement, then, is just how far he is willing to go to avoid those decisions that would draw him out as the responsible actor. By adding that future presidents, not just Iraqi governments, will be making the final decision, Bush is engaging in an especially desperate evasive maneuver. Essentially he is responding to criticisms by saying ‘you cannot call this a failure because at some future date it might still be a success’. This is not so much letting history be the judge as it is deflecting attention from his own role in creating and maintaining the situation. He does not so much want a piece of history as seek to avoid the burdens of being a part of it.
These evasions are indeed calculated, but they are not part of a concerted plan by which ulterior motives are pursued so much as a sign of political desperation. As Michael O’Hanlon said, in the New York Times, ‘I also don't think [Bush] has enough new to say’. Besides practically bimonthly speech tours on Iraq, and publicity stunts dressed up as a military operations, Bush doesn’t actually have anything substantial to say about Iraq. He is treading water until he gets out of office. One gets the sense Bush would just as soon prefer not to be president anymore, but since he is, he is doing what he can to stay afloat politically.
The Time and effort Bush puts into the Iraq is beyond anything he invests in American society. So long as Bush is able to focus attention on Iraq, no matter how badly things look there, it is better for him than allowing the full light of public scrutiny to fall on his complete inattention to and visionless appraisal of American problems. Bush seems more comfortable presenting himself as the virtual representative of Iraqis than as the real representative of Americans. Against this Bush argues that "We can do more than one thing at a time.” But the more he insists, the more hollow his administration sounds. This, perhaps, is the reason why Bush is caught in the strange paradox of trying avoid responsibility for Iraq yet constantly pushing it center stage. He may have no new ideas for what to do in Iraq, but he has even less stomach for America.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home