Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Rove's Delusions | Russia Bans Borat »

Thursday, November 9, 2006

Bad Meaning Bad

posted by on November 9 at 11:40 AM

Let’s not be confused about Rummy’s resignation. We must also clear the confusion that exists between those who understand that the war in Iraq is bad because it’s bad to begin with and those who think the war in Iraq is bad because it is going badly. Rummy’s resignation has to do with the latter, and so it is a meaningless, empty gesture. Sadly, most Americans voted against the war (by voting for Dems) because the plan of the war failed in reality. For them, mostly rural folks, it is the form of the thing that is wrong and not its content (“this is a war on terrorism”). But if all was well and good, if Rummy, the war’s “architect,” had designed for the public a great war and the back of Iraq was under his thumb, then, for them (those who turned to the Dems for help), nothing would be wrong at all. But no matter what form the war had taken (good or bad), the wrong that is its content would have remained as such. If we are not clear on this point then nothing will really be corrected and all that we are enjoying (celebrating, applauding) in the demise of Rummy are visual effects, long faces, and weak theater.

RSS icon Comments

1

The Bush administration has certainly foisted poor "content" (e.g., pre-emptive violence) on us, and that certainly needs to be pointed out. But you ignore that in addition, they have refused to accept responsibility for poor "form" (e.g., a nonexistent plan for post-invasion Iraq). This lack of accountability is a legitimate target for criticism, and a potential source for celebration when properly addressed, in its own right.

Rummy's departure is a modest expression of honest responsibility for disasterously poor decisions. It can be celebrated as such even by those who continue to oppose the war on principle. After all, we need both sound principles of governance and accountability.

Let's not churlishly refuse to celebrate improvements on the latter front even though the former is not addressed.

Posted by Mark | November 9, 2006 12:23 PM
2

Charles, I love your writing, and I largely agree with what you are saying.

I would view this with a slightly different nuance. There are two bads: the bad of making war on a country for no reason, and the bad of just fucking up everything due to complete incompetence, and making it all worse. Many people were (and still are) blind to the first bad, and were complicit in going along with it. Rummy was a part of that first bad, but only a small part. However, Rummy is almost entirely responsible for the second bad. He was the architect of this clusterfuck.

As a pragmatist, I can state that we were completely unjustified in making this war. But here we are, with 100,000 troops occupying a country that doesn't want us, spending a few billion dollars a week, while they descend into civil war. There are no good options going forward. There are only really bad and less bad options now.

Keeping Rumsfeld would have been a really bad option. Getting rid of him is one of the less bad options. I totally applaud his departure.

On the other hand, you are probably right. There will be a huge number of people who think invading was right, and that the only problem was the mishandling of the aftermath, and that getting rid of Rummy will solve everything. And while the new guy might help us navigate to one of the less bad options of getting out of this mess, he will never right the wrong of invading in the first place.

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 9, 2006 1:18 PM
3

I think the same thing every time I hear a criticism of the Bush administration's "incompetence." Sometimes I think their incompetence is a good thing -- if they'd been more competent at getting social security privatized, for instance, that would be a bad thing in my view.

In about two years, the GOP will run a presidential candidate who probably shares most of the priorities of the current one, and that candidate will try to make the case that he will execute the bad policies of this administration with more competence. So any current dialogue about setting national policy would do well to focus on content over execution.

That being said, though, man has the execution been piss-poor. It's like they want to fail.

Posted by flamingbanjo | November 9, 2006 1:27 PM
4

Agreed. Bush and his minions have done more to hurt America, its laws and its people than any Al Qaeda agent could.

What was that classic Bush quote referring to his administration?

“The enemy is always thinking of ways to harm the United States and its people, and so are we.”

Posted by Andrew | November 9, 2006 2:15 PM
5

He was the architect of this clusterfuck.

Please don't taint the fine word "clusterfuck" in this context. What I think you mean is "fiasco" or "debacle." Thanks.

Posted by some deaths take forever | November 9, 2006 2:23 PM
6

How about Quagmire?

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 9, 2006 3:49 PM
7

Quagmire? I like the ring of that.

Posted by some deaths take forever | November 9, 2006 4:23 PM
8

True, "quagmire" has a very Vietnam-era ring to it. However, I'll stick to my original clusterfuck. I spent 8 years in the Navy. "Clusterfuck" has always had a military connotation for me to describe a situation that is seriously fucked up, and most likely caused by the upper brass, and which must be dealt with by the lower ranking grunts. That perfectly describes the current situation where the poor soldiers over there are getting killed on a daily basis because of Rummy's gross miscalculations on just about everything over the last 2 years (if not longer).

Nope. Quagmire is a good word. But clusterfuck is perfect.

Posted by SDA in SEA | November 9, 2006 4:33 PM
9

No, Charles, most Americans and most non-rural folk, including me, are able to hold a more measured and subtle view of war than you. We will accept the "badness" of war if it has a probable cause of reducing the greater "badness" of being ruthlessly attacked. Most Americans agree that we must have a plan to reduce this "badness", so we grant power to those architects who will design and one.

Obviously, many Americans are not happy with the results of the current plan, although it's hard to argue that it has been a complete failure. We haven't been attacked in such a way recently, now have we? They are unhappy about another “bad,” the loss of American soldiers.

Nothing (that you are referring to) will be corrected, regardless of whether you are "clear on this point", and nothing will be applauded either, short of a torturous demise of OBL.

Posted by capHillContrarian | November 9, 2006 8:31 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).