Emphasis Added

Saturday, March 15, 2003

Bush’s Big Mistake

When all is said and done, George Bush could be right about Iraq. There has never been any credible defense of the hateful regime, and there is plenty of reason to believe Saddam is doing his level best to deceive and divide international opinion as he has done so successfully in the past, even while offering tokens of compliance. The term “regime change” in reference to Iraq entered the American political vocabulary from the mouth of Bill Clinton, not Bush, and I often ask myself how my reaction to the present situation would differ if Clinton or Gore were in the White House pursuing basically the same policy (as likely they would).

So this begs the important question – if Bush is right about Iraq, wherein lies the problem? Seems to me that there are three areas that galvanize opposition.

Supporting Bush on the war strengthens his political position to achieve other outcomes. This is where most partisans on both sides fall, and if you’re a partisan yourself, there’s no further need for discussion. That said, it doesn’t address the issue on the merits, and it presumes the agreement of whoever you’re talking to.
It’s not the policy, it’s the way it’s being executed. This argument comes down to competence rather than ideology, and it is the fundamental subtext for everyone who questions the war on the basis of timing, priorities, our ability to successfully manage a post-war Iraq, the potential of future terrorism as a result of these actions, our inability to form a broad coalition, our ability to pay for the war given the other economic problems, and the general low level of confidence that the Bush team has inspired in other areas. It must be said that the jury is still out on all of these questions, and Bush and co. might possibly prove all their critics wrong in the end if it all works out.
It sets a horrible precedent. Yes, Saddam is a bad guy and the regime is probably guilty of something, but we can’t just go and topple a government anytime we feel like it.

In the long run, it’s number 3 that is probably the most problematic for Bush at home and abroad, and it’s a problem strictly of his own making. The case against Iraq in particular is much stronger than the case for pre-emptive action in general. Where Clinton and Gore would likely have differed from the Bush approach is in separating Iraq from the larger doctrinal question, so that potential allies would feel less anxiety about signing a “blank check” for future American (or Russian, or Chinese) ambitions that would rely on the precedent of pre-emptive war. Instead, Bush and his team have not only consistently failed to give assurances about their longer term intentions, but have given voice to the most extreme positions within the Republican party who would like to use the whole crisis situation as a springboard for a totally interest-driven, unilateralist foreign policy.

This absolutist approach, so typical of the temperament and methods of the Administration, has scared the bejeezus out of most of the world and many of the more thoughtful people here at home. In the minds of many, the drawbacks of signing up for the Wolfowitz-Cheney world domination plan outweigh the considerable merits of any action against Saddam. The Administration has been so strident in its rhetoric for so long that it is now almost impossible to separate the two issues, and the suspicions raised about American intentions in the long run will be hard to dispel.

It didn’t need to be this way. Bush made the choice to frame the Iraq issue as part of a grander doctrine, within the context of an alarming shift in the way the US deals with the rest of the world. If he hadn’t been so insistent on shoving the notion of American supremacy down the throats of an international and domestic audience clearly uncomfortable with that proposition, he could have had his war and his alliance and eaten it too. As it is, the inevitable conflict and military victory will be hollowed out by this President’s one really big mistake.

2:04:18 PM

Emphasize This! []

Emphasis On Blogging

I know this a boring topic for most non-bloggers, so I’ll be brief. There’s a great discussion going on over at Rayne Today (continued at the Raven) around the subject of inner-driven vs. audience-driven blogging. Rayne likes her blogging raw and tasty. Raven and I figure if it’s being served up for consumption, it ought to look nice on the plate.

Here’s how I see it. I’m an exhibitionist. Can’t help it, wouldn’t if I could. What’s under my dirty raincoat is right up here on the site, and every one of you reading these words is doing me a big, wonderful favor. Your attention is a rare and precious thing. I want it, but I’m not entitled to it, so I try to make it worth your while.

At the same time, during the day, I’m paid to write about all kinds of terrible subjects that don’t interest me much, so when I’m writing for free, I’m gonna write about what I want. Lately that’s been politics, but in general, it’s a fairly eclectic mix of weird topics. Because you don’t know what you’re going to get when you click Emphasis Added, I generally feel obliged to contribute something thoughtful, witty, informative or satisfying. I don’t always get there, but know that I’m always trying.

The other thing about blogging is that we’re working without a net here: no editors, no proofreaders, no lady at the desk handing out the assignments. I’m a professional writer, but I’m not a professional journalist. Nevertheless, the time you spend reading my stuff is the same time you could be spending reading Krugman or Ivins or Chait (who, by the way, says he likes EA!). That’s a big honor and a big responsibility, and if I can’t be as authoritative and informative as they are, I do my best to at least frame my point of view in a readable and entertaining manner. I also do my best to fact-check, spell-check and grammar-check so that your patience for my nonsense is not further tested by gratuitous illiteracy. Don’t always get there – always trying.

So, thanks for indulging my self-indulgence. Now, back to the regularly-scheduled ranting…

10:54:00 AM

Emphasize This! []