One trait I have known among most par or sub par middle managers is the inability to admit a mistake. They stick to their guns until someone above them forces them, grudgingly, to alter course. This has been explained to me by one of the few excellent middle managers I have known. Maybe this is only true in the Military-Industrial sector, which is where I earn my bread. But my former boss said that one of the worst things to be seen as, if you want a promotion, is indecisive. To admit a mistake and shift course is seen as having poor leadership qualities in the military. To stick to your guns is seen as showing character. Then the onus falls on your superior to fix things.
But what happens when you have no superior?
A friend has been in the high powered consulting realm for a while. She says that Bush reminds her of most Harvard MBAs she has come across. They form a strategy, assume it will work. Refuse to consider an alternate path, and stick to their guns with no contingency plan. If it works, they are brilliant. If it does not, they eventually move on, and get another job because, after all, they have an MBA from Harvard. When things go wrong, it is left to the next guy to clean up the mess.
I think it is what we are seeing in Iraq. The assumption was that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms once Saddam was overthrown, and they would welcome Democracy. How realistic were these assumptions? Given the fractious nature of Iraqis (Sunni, Shiite, Kurds) and the tribal mentality that seems to rule in Arabia, I think these assumptions were naive at best. Now, this is not 20/20 hindsight. A lot of people questioned the lack of a plan on the Administrations part.
And the absolute refusal to consider the consequences is killing us now. No exit strategy whatsoever for Iraq. Our exit strategy that the administration is still holding to is to turn authority over to the Iraqis in less than two months. Realistic? Iraq is a mess right now, and it seems the only think keeping it to degenerate into complete chaos is the presence of the American Military. Coupled with the fact, and I do believe it is a fact, that they are growing less and less tolerant of our presence. We are no longer liberators, if we truly ever were, we are now the occupying force.
So we are in a mess in Iraq. Whose fault is it? The Bush administration. Completely. More and more it appears that an intentional false case was made to go to war in Iraq. It now appears that there was no evidence of either WMDs or an Al Qaida connection. These are fair questions to ask because these two points were the foundation of the administrations case for war. Two conclusions can be drawn. The first is that the administration legitimately believed in the presence of WMDs and the terror connection. The second is that they had ulterior motives, and needed a rationale. Basically it comes down to incompetent or dishonest. Take your pick.
So ow do we get out of the mess we are in now? Maybe I am wrong and things work out. It would be nice, but I do not see it happening. If we pull out, or hand the government over to the Iraqis too early, I see civil war and nation wide violence, with the potential for genocide. If we stay, I see revolution against us, and maybe a growing war with various Arab/religions groups. Either way, I fear well have more violence, and more deaths on both sides.
One path out is internationalism. We would need to enlist the help of a much broader spectrum of nations than we currently have. This is getting harder and harder by the day, as the insurgents make Iraq more and more unfriendly. The UN has downsized its presence. Expect any bold initiatives from Kofi Annan? Forget it. He is good for little other than criticizing the US and Israel. I understand how he feels like he has to stand up for the little guy, but the little guy he stands up for are despots and tyrants who oppress their population. I will punt my anti UN rant to a post script. In any event, internationalism will not be embraced by the current administration, and resentment on the part of other nations toward our unilateralist approach to foreign affairs might stifle any desire to help.
One other potential path would be military domination. Could we enforce peace through military might? In the short term, yes we can. The price is very high, however. The cost of military dominance is the sacrifice of many of our principles. The ruthless nature of imposing rule over an unwilling population runs counter to American principles. We are seeing the cost of this with the current scandal over treatment of prisoners.
So what if we pull troops out. This would result in utter chaos in Iraq. The US would lose face in the Arab world, and it would empower terrorists. Of all the options, I fear this is the worst. I also think this is what we will eventually do.
Here is what I think will happen. I think Bush is taking the middle manager approach. He’s gonna stay the course in Iraq, as long as he’s in power. He won’t admit that he screwed up royally. We’ll set up an Iraqi government. The legitimacy of that government is irrelevant; it will be perceived as a puppet regime, and will be unpopular due to allegiance with us. At some point, we will back out, and it will fall, and Iraq will degenerate into Chaos. Whoever succeeds Bush will be forced to fix, this mess, and blame for the consequences will be laid on the desk of Bush’s successor.
Two more interesting questions. Curious on peoples thoughts.
1. Why did we REALLY invade Iraq? What were the administrations REAL motives?
2. Who are we REALLY at war with? Is this really a war with Terrorism, or is it something more? Or maybe it’s something less.
Disjointed UN Rant
The Saddam regime was an evil mess. And flaunting UN resolutions was its bread and butter. Saddam era Iraq stunk no matter how you cut it. European nations like France, Russia and Germany were probably violating sanctions in dealing with Iraq. The UN, largely useless now, was doing nothing to enforce their resolutions and deadlines. And where is the outrage over the human rights abuses in Iraq, or around Arabia? The UN would condemn The US, or Israel on a regular basis. What about condemning Saudi treatment of women or the regular use of torture in the Middle East?
Here is the Universal Declaration on Human Rights from www.un.org. Here is the Charter of the United Nations. Noble principles. Obviously designed by a Western mind. Now look at the Middle East. Only one nation in the Middle East even comes close to reaching these principles. Israel. It’s really the only nation to even pay lip service to anything resembling Human Rights in the region. So has the UN done anything to address the human rights abuses in that part of the world? I can’t find anything via google, or earching on the un web site. Granted, maybe my searching skills are deficient. Who knows.
I do know that noone in the UN seemed to particularly care about the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam’s regime. Noone in the UN thought it was worth while to do anything in Rwanda. Noone at the UN seems to particularly care about Saudi women. When there was a PR campaign against the treatment of women under the Taliban in the late 90s, where was the outrage? What bugs me is that it seems to me that the UN under Kofi Annan cares desperately for the rights of existing governments. It doesn’t seem to give a rats ass about the legitimacy of said governments, or the people who live under these regimes.
The State Department has a human rights site. Peruse this if you can. Click on “country reports” and read about the world. Granted, we aren’t perfect in the US and we have a lot of work to do. But reading about nations everywhere else puts things in perspective. We’re not all that bad.
