perfidy

In a recent comment, NDR (loyal reader #0010) says:

However I think that people examining the current scandal need to reflect how scandals are, in general, seldom about specific actions and events but the things they represent. The hubbub over Iraq-Niger focuses the disappointment felt as few of the war?s goals have been met: the Iraqis are not thankful to the US, their plight has worsened, US troops will not be coming home soon, the US commitment to nation-building will be extensive, Hussein did not pose the threat that the government claimed, and that the intelligence community cannot be relied on to safeguard Americans and concentrate activities related to the war on terror itself.

He is certainly right that the people who are exercised over this scandal probably don't really care about the specifics, and likely don't know where Niger is either. Further, I think that Pythagosaurus' complaints about transparency get to the rest of the issue. The administration, while not lying, has not laid out the case very well, and seems reluctant to talk about why it's doing what it's doing.

If this hubbub is indeed the result of this discontent over the factors that NDR mentions, how justified is it, and why are they complaining?
Much has been made of the discontent of the Iraqi people. Most Iraqis probably want us to go home. But the question is really when - right now, or after we have contributed to the formation of a responsible government, fixed the infrastructure, and generally settled things down. I think most Iraqis would prefer the second option. From reports by reporters actually in Iraq, the word is that they are very happy that Saddam is gone, and they recognize that we got rid of him. They are thankful for that. But, like anyone, they don't want to be ruled by someone else. Happily for them, we don't want to be there forever. Much of what is reported as ungratefulness could more properly be termed impatience.

As for claiming that their plight has worsened, I don't think you can make that argument. One, no more brutal fascist dictator. If their electricity went out for a while, that is a hardship - but its back on now. And certainly lacking electricity does not compare to mass graves.

As for Saddam not posing the threat that was claimed, this is closest to being true. But keep in mind how certain elements would have reacted if Bush had said, in effect, "Saddam is a weakling, his army is pathetic, and we are going to go through him like shit through a goose." He would have been called arrogant (well, more arrogant) and contemptuous of Islam and whatever. He was right to err on the side of caution - he said be prepared for a long war, but we're gonna win. Nothing really wrong there.

As for the WMD part of that equation, see my other posts.

The administration has always said that this would be a long war, and that Iraq was but a single aspect of it. Nation building was not a surprise, nor was the lengthy tours of duty for our soldiers. Since the end of "official" hostilities, the media have reported over and over the attacks on US servicemen, and military morale problems, and so on. But considering that 25 million people who until a couple months ago were under the heel of a brutal dictator are now free - they are behaving well, all things considered. Even though there are several attacks a week, this represents an absolutely miniscule portion of the Iraqi population. And, what the media doesn't mention, most of the attacks are in Saddam's home territory. (I plan on addressing the manpower issue sometime soon.)

Finally, we have known that we couldn't rely on our intelligence services since the early morning of September 11, 2001. That nothing serious has been done is abominable.

The administration has failed to tell people the things that they should know. But overall, things are going well in Iraq. The media is going to report on every soldier or marine killed, but the administration needs to make the case better that progress is being made in other areas. Whenever a problem that the media is bleating about is solved, they don't report that, "Hey, there's electricity now!" Instead, they move onto the next disaster.

So, back here in the states, people are upset about the sixteen words in the SOTU because Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq and is generally falling down on the war on terror. Since that isn't really the case, they are either misinformed, for which we can blame both the administration and the media, or they are pursuing purely partisan advantage by picking at nits.

I think that there are serious issues that can be raised, issues that for the Democrats might have a lot more traction with the general public than, ?Bush lied.? For one, the Saudi thingie. Others include the Homeland Security department, the Patriot acts, and so on. The war happened. If Democrats want to be taken seriously on National Security, they should talk about how we are going to rebuild Iraq, where to go next in the war on terror, and how to apply our principles in a coherent foreign policy. And the current administration needs to be a lot more open about what it is doing.