Your Humble Blogger, usually, struggles to avoid cynicism, but is forced to it by events. However, there's an odd sequence of events, where Your Humble Blogger predicted, out of a sort of cynicism, events which didn't ultimately take place. Was I too cynical, or not cynical enough?
US forces in Iraq have, bizarrely, failed to find any remotely persuasive evidence of a chemical or biological weapons program. I say bizarrely because I (and nearly everyone I know) predicted that the forces would arrive ready to plant evidence, on the chance that there was no actual program. It's what I would do. I mean, if I were scrupulous, I wouldn't, but if I were scrupulous, I wouldn't have got into the habit of misleading people about a variety of things.
Look, the one way that the US looks good to the world after the invasion is if we can hold up canisters of smallpox and say, "See! We were right! You were wrong! The threat was real, and we've saved millions of lives by our timely intervention!" Many people would have believed that we had planted the evidence (whether we had or not), but we would have been justified in many eyes.
Digression: Another way, ultimately, to restore the US to the good graces or at least the better graces of the world is to build a paradise in Iraq. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, like Cato saying Delenda Carthago, until I either die or persuade somebody. End Digression.
So, the question is, was I too cynical, and the US rejected the planting of false information because it would be wrong? Or was I not cynical enough, thinking foolishly that Our Only President and his gang cared at all about world opinion?
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.
Although I am often extremely cynical about such things, I actually was never convinced that the US gov’t would plant WMDs. It felt a little too forced to me, a little too obvious; too much chance of things going wrong, not enough payoff. It’s much easier to just say that the Iraqis must have destroyed or sold them before the war, then to downplay the issue and stop commenting on it. I gather that world opinion is rather concerned about this behavior, but US opinion isn’t (for some reason, all the leftist bloggers are talking about this today, and someone noted that a poll showed 41% of Americans polled either thought we’d found WMDs or weren’t sure), so why bother to go to the trouble of planting evidence? A matter of pragmatism rather than morals, I think.
On the other hand, even I am not cynical enough to have guessed that the Jessica Lynch thing was largely faked. Sometimes the world’s behavior exceeds my available capacity for cynicism.
It appears that the Bush administration believes that it is simpler, more straightforward, and ultimately effective simply to lie about the fact that no WMD have been found in Iraq than to go to the trouble to plant them, which would take a good deal of work.
Bush is telling the nation, and other nations, that we have found the things, when we have not! He’s on record as saying that to the Poles.
So how does simply lying about what has been found compare to planting evidence on the cynicism chart?
Another end by which to grasp this stick: Why did we actually invade Iraq? It seems clear, now, that Bush and his cronies did not have great faith in the WMD evidence themselves (although, to be fair, there is the ‘better safe than sorry argument). Was it about the oil? Was it about the land, a terrific staging ground for other Middle East interests? Was it about deliberately fomenting dissention in Europe, to slow down the EU’s consolidation of power? Was it about boosting electoral chances for the Republican Party? Was it about the budget? Was it payback for Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait? Was it to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians? All of these are of interest to world opinion, buy I don’t know whether Bush cares at all about world opinion.
The thing is, that the bulk of the American people don’t seem to care why we went in, and certainly don’t seem to care whether we find or don’t find evidence of a weapons program. It didn’t cost too much (in the short term), so we, as a culture, seem to be ready to forget about it. And if Bush was counting on that, it’s perhaps the most cynical of all.
Thanks,
-V.
Good questions. This person’s answers —
1) Oil. Cheap oil is the foundation of our economic and military dominance.
2) Boosting electoral chances.
3) Putting the fear of U.S. power into any and all who might be thinking about not toeing the U.S. line on various and sundry economic and political matters.
Military dominance of the world by the U.S. is the stated foreign policy plan of the members of this administration, from all that I understand, and that entails the occasional demonstration that the U.S. is willing to use its military might unilaterally.
Why did we actually invade Iraq? Was it about the oil?
What have gained that suggests it was about oil? I have no information on this.
Was it about the land, a terrific staging ground for other Middle East interests?
That seems likely, but what *are* those interests, anyway?
Was it about deliberately fomenting dissention in Europe, to slow down the EU’s consolidation of power?
I would discard this as too subtle for the current administration personalities adn pereferences.
Was it about boosting electoral chances for the Republican Party?
If coupled with a good understanding of American fluff-brainedness and short attention span, then yes.
Was it about the budget?
What, to distract us from it? Possible fringe benefit.
Was it payback for Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait?
For some, this I think was a good thing. Not a decision making/breaking thing, but a perk.
Was it to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians?
Not really. That’s what nation-building is for.
All of these are of interest to world opinion, but I don’t know whether Bush cares at all about world opinion.
I’ve seen no evidence of this. I would suggest that the evidence goes the other way.
I put this badly in my last comment here, but my point was that the questions are ones people outside the US are asking and could have been expected to ask. A competent state would have been prepared to give answers, or at least responses. I don’t necessary ask for true answers, as I wouldn’t believe them anyway (no more would anyone else) but I don’t think we have given any, other than shrieking about two mobile labs that provided about as much threat to us as Hideki Matsui.
Redintegro Iraq,
-V.
Well, given that Our Humble President has now blamed looters for the disappearance of the putative weapons that “justified” the war on Iraq, I guess we have some sort of an answer as to how cynical we were. I admit that I thought there would be missiles found that had “made in the USA” stamped on the inside, but apparently Bush cares enough for public opinion to make a lame excuse.
See this New York Times article (free registration required–yeah, yeah, yeah. I like using the username and password available from librarian.net.)