Stranger (to) Reason
Reader DS wields Occam's Razor in a cogent attempt to make sense of the Bush crowd's long-term strategy in Iraq. The goal, he maintains, must be: permanent bases. Josh adds a corollary: "We're permanently occupying Iraq to lock down the world oil supply."
It gives us something of a sense of intellectual mastery when we can give rational reasons why the White House & Co. chose their catastrophic course in Iraq. We have recourse to the familiar vocabulary of goals, strategies, tactics, causes, effects. We get the familiar picture of a group of strategists who, after considering alternatives the way rational people do, deduce that a certain course is the most likely to achieve their goals. They start from faulty premises, true, but it is somewhat reassuring (if in a paranoid way) to imagine a deliberative circle who think their situation through and come to the conclusion that, say, democracy and therefore anti-Islamist stability will result from radically changing the game in Iraq with an invasion; and/or that they need to secure the local oil fields in perpetuity.
I don't doubt that both such considerations passed through their minds, but something in this picture strikes me as false, namely the assumption that Bush & Co. think straight about reasons. To think so underestimates, I think, how dangerous they are, and how dangerous was and is the movement they led and continue to represent, a movement that will not disappear in January 2009.
They are wilder than that, more erratic, more whimsical, more reckless. They do not reckon. Sure, they had pipe dreams about Middle Eastern democracy, and they were and remain ready to place huge stacks of chips on the oil supply. Bravado toward such ends is, if you will (as Dick Cheney would say), rational--misguided, short-sighted, but formally rational in the cause-effect sense. But to describe these doings in the orderly language of goals and means misses their deep nature. These people do what they do because they can; because they have a feel for "what's right"; because they are not a mind but a bulldozer.
This may seem a quibble, but I think not. It goes to the heart, and spleen, of a whole movement.
Now the punch-line: In a book coming out in September, The Bulldozer and the Big Tent: Blind Republicans, Lame Democrats, and the Recovery of American Ideals, I argue this case at greater length.
These people do what they do because they can; because they have a feel for "what's right"; because they are not a mind but a bulldozer.
Bush, on Putin:
Yep.
"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani
May 31, 2007 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, cscs. This business of sizing a guy up by looking him in the eye is a page right out of Old West mythology, which is splendidly evoked in Frederick Jackson Turner's classic writing on the American frontier, and which, in writing my book, I found very helpful for understanding Bush.
Todd Gitlin
May 31, 2007 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think back. Think back to early 2000, when out of nowhere we are presented with a nincompoop, backed by tens of millions of oil company dollars, as the designated Republican Presidential candidate. Almost overnight those oil company dollars grew to a size that precluded there being any competition for that nomination. Surely this didn't just happen because the stars were aligned right.
What did those oil company dollars all have in common? They were all an investment aimed at something, so what could that something have been? Could we possibly observe what happened during the first few years after the US Supreme Court installed their investment as our president, and draw some conclusions from that?
My conclusion is that, like any good investment, this one paid off big time, and continues to do so. I am wasting a lot of space here just to repeat, once again, the Iraq invasion and occupation was designed to transfer US tax money from the US Treasury to the bank accounts of a relatively small group of oil men, from the Halliburton cabal, who "earn" that money by building oil industry infrastructure, to the oil companies that "earn" that money by stealing it through deals with corrupt foreign governments to pay them for extracting oil from the oil fields in those countries.
When you start talking about money in the trillions of dollars there are absolutely no limits to what some men will do for a major share of that money. 3000, 4000, even a hundred times that number of deaths of American soldiers, let alone of Iraqis, is a pittance to the men who can see those $$$ signs. They are still grasping for those dollars.
Hoppy in Sacramento
May 31, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The post is on the money; we aren't talking conspiracy or reason; we are talking about erratic, mindless and extreme people.
Lame Democrats is what I may disagree on. As a net result from a progressive perspective, Democrats may seem lame. Yet, most Democrats in congress are just about Rockefeller Republicans and as such they are very effective rather then lame.
May 31, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that the U.S. is in Iraq to lock down oil is not particularly convincing. If we really want to "own" an oil producing country we would invade Venezuela. Adding the cost of US troops to the cost of oil seems uncessary. Countries that have oil to sell will still sell into the market. Once in the open market the oil will be sold to anyone with the money. Secondly, most, but not all of the big oil companies are American.
Also, how to explain the presence of American troops in about 140 countries now? To find a single "evil" explanation may be pleasing but it doesn't make a lot of sense in a complicated world.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 31, 2007 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
e: "We're permanently occupying Iraq to lock down the world oil supply."
The Iraqi oil supply, maybe. But the whole world's oil supply? How does having bases in Iraq lock down oil in Nigeria, Indonesia or the North Sea?
May 31, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
DanielGree:
Respectfully, I have a few problems with your analysis. Why not invade Venezuela rather than Iraq? Because Venezuela's oil fields are mature with production on the decline, whereas Iraq has the largest known undeveloped oil reserves in the world. Iraq is also a lot closer to the central Asian former Soviet countries where most of the other remaining undeveloped oil and gas reserves are. It is also close to Saudi Arabia and Iran and their oil.
You say that most of the big oil companies are American. That's only true of the private oil companies, and they are small players compared to the national companies that control production in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico, Venzuela, Brazil, Indonesia, etc., etc., etc. With demand for oil rising all over the world and production holding steady or declining just about everywhere. National companies may start making production and sale decisions based upon national interests rather than market forces. The fact that we are building the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad and four (?) large permanent bases around Iraq indicates that we intend to hold that country on a short leash for the foreseeable future. Oil is the only consideration that woudl explain that plan.
May 31, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Be patient, as soon as the Neo-Cons have turned Iraq, Iran and Syria into smoking hell holes for the greater good of the Middle East, by putting us our children, our grandchildren and their children in debt and poverty for the next century then they will probably allow their big oil co-partners in crime to get a Venezuelan preemptive invasion to create a real Capitalist democracy there, destroy the scourge of democratic Socialism in Latin America and of course get the oil. War is peace and poverty allows prosperity don't ya know?
May 31, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it about the Oil? Is it about Israel? Well Yes and Yes. But it is bigger than that. The people who currently run our national security almost without exception are among the signatories to the Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles. Their intent is not expressed with subtlety, they are right up front about their means and ends.
"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?"
There is not a hint of 'First Among Equals' here, nothing about 'Leadership' and everything about 'Rulership". There really is no rhetorical space between 'New American Century' and 'Permanent Majority' that fundamentally separates them from 'Thousand Year Reich'.
If you are going to conquer the world, and shape a new century, then obviously you need to secure the oil and protect the loyal vassals, but to suggest that Bush's Excellent Iraqi Adventure is about Oil or Israel is to confuse means and ends. The PNAC Vulcans set out with a conscious plan for American Empire, put their vision in writing, signed it, and then muscled their way into power, Cheney self-selecting himself. The only mistake was going with the wrong Bush, because it is worth noting that JEB and not George was a signatory.
May 31, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This war has been brought to you by the makers of empire. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Kagan, Podhoretz, Perle, Woo, Rove, Libby, Ledeen, Bolton, Abrams and other like-minded “conservatives“ are the great thinkers behind their cardboard poster boy, Bush. Both Likudnik-neocons and true-believers in supreme executive power form this cabal. Old PNAC plans were dusted off.
I think professor Gitlin is exactly right and any in-depth analysis that didn’t fit the agenda was rejected out of hand. Al Qaeda put the M.E. and Israel front and center. Control of oil, permanent bases, a stupid notion (still kept) that Iraq was step one leading to regime changes in Iran and Syria, transformation of global terrorist status to Hezbollah and Hamas (now automatic enemies of the U.S.), were all, I imagine, benefits giddily discussed behind closed doors.
But the criticism of the administration in 2001 was that they did not have a critical policy organization in the WH. Almost all of their decisions were instigated by political advisors, screened through political filters and made on political grounds. The invasion of Iraq did all of the things above, regarded as worthy by our elected leaders. But with the quick rout in Afghanistan, Iraq was also seen as a way to keep Bush on the front pages as our cowboy war president into the future (at least through the next election).
May 31, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point would be that controlling the largest reserve means one can either pump or not, adjusting the price found on spot markets. The majors are not unhappy to keep Iraq's oil off the market, as it is supporting prices.
May 31, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt that both such considerations passed through their minds, but something in this picture strikes me as false, namely the assumption that Bush & Co. think straight about reasons. To think so underestimates, I think, how dangerous they are, and how dangerous was and is the movement they led and continue to represent.
Thanks for making the point so forcefully. Ironically, as this article in the American Prospect tells the story , the neocon idea that blossomed into the Bush Doctrine started with Albert Wohlstetter's argument that U.S. foreign policy was too dependent on the assumption of rationality on the part of our adversaries. We have seen the enemy, and he is us.
May 31, 2007 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. I remember much talk, still going on, about irrational leaders. It seems it was not only a trend of allowing for irrational behavior but an expectation, or even desire, for Saddam or others to act irrationally. If they did so, any response was legitimate because the other actor was insane.
Ironic that Saddam was too sensible to fall for the provocations delivered before the invasion.
June 1, 2007 6:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it's a little bit like how they are also managerially incompetent, thus proving the conservative belief that government is of no use. Rational actors? No such thing - see?
June 1, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clever point, Devon.
Todd Gitlin
June 1, 2007 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
The first months in the WH Cheney was clustered in secret meetings, never yet made public, with energy companies laying out a may for how the oil profits would be distributed. Twelve of the people who attacked were Saudi's and likely sponosored by the royal family. The Saudi Royals visited TX as part of the Carlye Group that is in bed with Baker and the Bush family. Cheney and Baker pushed Condi out of her role as Sec or State when it came to negotiating with the ME. This war has always been about geoglobal control of the oil supplies. Which is what necessitates long-term occupation of Iraq to ward off China and Iran from taking control of that Iraq's oil supply. This is also why Bush plans to attack Iran before he leaves office. Israel and the neocons support these actions for Israel's 'security' but the US under the Bush cabal is strictly in the ME for the oil.
June 1, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with T.Gitlin's theory in its entirety. All institutions have this inherent problem - members whose reasoning is faulty or irrational or inconclusive or exuberant or enthusiastic. The problem is that there is no one providing a uniform vision or goal that would work as a failsafe to vett these ideas, to test the rationality of them by exposure to outside sources.
FDR's administration is a case in point; every person employed by that administration had aspirations and ideas that were either too radical, too irrational or impractical for implementation at one time or another, including FDR. The difference though, between his administation and Bush's is that FDR was so confident in his abilities and so sure of his cause, he wasn't afraid to seek advice or the opinion of others. With FDR's administration, there was also a common goal and agenda set by Roosevelt. Bush's administration has no goal in common - each participant has a goal or agenda separate from the other, and there is no end vision that unites them.
This president is so weak, so unintelligent, so lacking in leadership skills, that he is incapable of controlling these various interests and uniting them in a common cause. There are parts, but there is no "whole", which is one reason this administration is so secretive - to expose their inner workings would make this obvious to the country.
June 1, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
All actions are based -- always -- upon emotions, and the actor's emotions are unknowable to the observer (and often, to the actor her/himself). It is, therefore, an utter waste of time to ask why someone did or wants to do something. All that those who will be affected by the proposed action should care about is what power they have to prevent the actor from carrying it out.
And when it comes to the President acting under his so-called War Powers, the answer is that those affected, the American people, have none at the outset. It is left solely to the President (and such advisors as he may credit) to decide whether his actions will be approved or disapproved by the people at some later date -- and of course, he may not care whether they do or they don't.
Not the best way to run a railroad, perhaps, but there it is.
Note: And to the question of why Bush (and his advisors?) chose a certain policy vis-a-vis Iraq, the answer is "Who cares?"
June 1, 2007 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
And can we imagine the shouts of jubilation over at the AEI when George Bush was proclaimed President by the Supremes?
It's indeed a cruel twist of fate (for us and the world) when mediocrities intent on world rulership should have at their command a mediocrity who lusts for power sitting on the throne of power .
Is it any wonder that Bush brought more than two dozen people over from the AEI to serve in government positions and on advisory panels? Bush gets the strokes, they get their policies.
You're right, Bruce, it - oil and Israel - is bigger than that.
June 1, 2007 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
It all began at the beginning. They were not committed to the rigor of reality checking by, say, accurately counting the votes of the American people. Their estrangement from reason was bolstered by a linear model of profit maximization. There is no contextual analysis in looking a man in the eye, either. Their cowboy retro cognitive style is stick-figurism, now seated in power, and profitable for those who blindly invest in it. When reality doesn't check out, they lie, cheat, bluff, and bribe.
The seminal issue, at this point, is not about the efficacy of the rational actor presupposition to characterize those in executive power. It is whether or not "We the People" can revive reason in our lifetime. In my own view, that would begin by impeaching the person and the proclivities of Richard B. Cheney. After all, his wife referred to him, at the start of his vice-presidency, as the new sheriff in town.
I enjoy your posts,
Tish
June 2, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Todd, I refer to your:
Boy Howdy! Gut instinct overrides strat-er-ger-y. Emotion trumps reason...
Salesmen use it all the time. If it's too good to be true, it isn't true.
~OGD~
June 3, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
~
Well, be it that the Railroad Commission runs Texas, I'm not surprised?
~OGD~
June 3, 2007 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree that the movement represented by Bush and Cheney will not disappear in January 2009, I'm not sure if I fully understand the rest of your argument.
Even those who do not think things through very clearly have their reasons. I believe that it's useful to understand their motives in most cases. What do you think that the Administration was ultimately trying to achieve?
June 5, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink