Red & Blue

You know, I always got the impression that the reason we created a separation of powers in our government to begin with was to encourage discussion and reasoned debate about issues before jumping to a decision. I always got the impression though that cooperation wasn't GWB's strong suit. However, I persisted in the hope that somewhere there were people who had his ear, who weren't simple yes men, and who at least had some sort of debate before a decision was reached.

Today, I finally lost that hope, as I read one of the articles in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17bremer.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

In a nutshell, L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the top civilian commander in Iraq at the time of the invasion in 2003, announced to the President and his aides that he was completely dissolving the Iraqi army. This news was a surprise to most of the staff, and was not discussed with any of the President's closest advisers, with the exception of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Not even Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was consulted--a step that one would think to be very wise. Powell considers the order a large mistake, and when he asked GWB's national security adviser Condi Rice for an explanation, she responded:

"I was surprised too, but it is a decision that has been made and the president is standing behind Jerry's decision."

There was no more debate on the matter.

I am going to be honest. I am ashamed that something like this was allowed to happen, that the president can surround himself with subordinates who value loyalty to the president than to their true employers, the people of the United States. His advisers failed to act in any sort of advisory capacity, and this has possibly changed the course of the Iraq war for the worse over the past five years. Admittedly, much of the blame resides with Dubya himself, for putting his agenda before his duty as president, but I personally would have expected his advisers to take a more active role in his policies, and prevent him from making blunders of this degree.

Was dissolving the Iraq army a mistake? Ostensibly, the purpose was to rid the country of the remaining Baathist institutions, as a sign to the Iraqi people that America was committed. However, this has turned out to be a colossal misjudgement, as it placed the security of the entire country in the hands of American soldiers, while the infrastructure of the Iraqi army was destroyed, leaving our troops quite alone. Now, faced with the prospect of withdrawal, the United States will soon be struggling...to create an Iraqi army...

What thought process lead to the notion that this was a good idea? It can be easily argued that the more the United States did to shake up that region...well, the more shaken up it would become. (In math terms, this equation looks something like 1=1.) Anyone with common sense could have seen this coming! Whats more, if Bush had taken the time to consult important people before agreeing to this, then the army might never have been dissolved, and we could have been working with the Iraqis from day one to crush the resistance. (This is not to say that invading in the first place was the right decision. It wasn't. However, once we had stormed in, you would think that the president could make the effort to run the war right.) Here's a bright idea--why not use Iraqis to rebuild Iraq? Because they were part of an institution begun by Saddam Hussein? Sorry, George, but next time plan it out before risking American lives.

Fortunately, with less than a year to go, and the Democrats in control of Congress, there won't be a next time.