Diffusing Blame - Bush on the War Path

Bush is traveling to Jordan this week to try and find someone to help him out of this ungodly mess he's created in Iraq. On his way, he's making a few stops to visit some of the mighty coalition partners, like Estonia. Until the 1990's, Estonia was part of the Soviet bloc and, as I recall, their main export was a low grade of coal, the consistency of peat, that only burns if it's added to regular coal. Other natural resources were smoke and the color gray. But I digress. While making a speech to the NATO summit, Bush pointed out that when he meets with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri Al-Maliki, in Jordan, he's going to demand some answers, primarily to the question of what is his plan to quell the sectarian violence in Iraq.

It's kinda tacky of the president to suggest that Al-Maliki better figure this out or else. It's not like we've left him much to work with. When we crashed into Iraq, we disbanded the Iraqi army, dismantled a functioning government apparatus, and disenfranchised a large portion of the population using a tactic called "de-baathification", a cleansing operation, if you will, that backfired and energized a massive insurgency. Not to mention the fact that we currently have about 130,000 troops parked in Baghdad, a daily reminder to millions of pissed off people that they're living under occupation. Al-Maliki is fully aware of the stakes and Bush knows that.

What's really happening here is a dilution of responsibility. This war is a disaster and we stand a good chance of losing big. Bush does not want that squarely on his shoulders, especially since he's already picking out carpet for his presidential library, that $500-million institute where he plans to "fine tune" his legacy. Since he's basically out of ideas, Bush thinks everyone else should step up and bail him out, but as soon as they do, he'll make sure some of it sticks to them. He starts by sacking Rumsfeld (one of his most loyal soldiers), then refusing to talk to Iran and Syria, probably so they don't lose their "axis of evil" sheen. Now he wants it to look like the Iraqi government is responsible for the ongoing maelstrom because they are powerless to stop it. He is pinning his biggest hopes on the Hamilton/Baker-led Iraq Study Group but nobody expects to hear anything new and promising coming from them. In fact, they are deeply divided amongst themselves over fundamental strategy (escalate versus evacuate). Bush also says NATO needs to accept more of the "difficult assignments" if this is going to succeed. We can expect that when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes in January, Bush will ask them where their plan is.

This shortage of ideas and an unwillingness to get more involved underscores the fact that none of these people got us into the war, so you can't really blame them for not having the answers. Ultimately, Bush is Commander in Chief and he is, for that reason alone, directly responsible, but more than that, it was his direct orders that lit the fuse.

While the administration fans out to grasp at anything they can to improve their performance in Iraq, they take that opportunity to manipulate the conversation in ways that give the impression that others are equally culpable for their miscalculations and failures.

Early in our country's history, James Madison said this:

"In war, a physical force is to be created, and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace."

This is why the constitution is so careful to place war making powers under the control of congress because, as Madison goes on to say, "the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man."

We can see how the Republican-controlled congress abrogated it's constitutional authority by giving Bush carte blanche to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, however it turns out will forever be etched in the legacy of the 43rd Prsident of the United States.