Impervious to Evidence

I've started reading Thomas E. Ricks Fiasco, and it's an infuriating experience - the content, not the book. It's torture for me to be reminded of how we wound up here. Ricks starts with the immediate aftermath of Bush I's Iraq War, often considered something of a masterpiece, only with those unfortunate blunders at the end. I prefer to go back slightly more, to remind myself that Iraq I was bookended by the blunders of Bush I.

Others have detailed how Bush I, probably motivated by the desire to keep oil prices high, not only encouraged Saddam in his threats against Kuwait but all but invited him to grab a piece of it. Saddam, though, slow learner that he was, went and grabbed the whole thing, probably with the idea of trading some of it back. Panicky George I went to Margaret Thatcher to have a good cry about it, who told him to buck up, be a man, and that it would even help his popularity, as her war had helped hers. He rallied, built his coalition, and they kicked the rascals out.

This takes us to where Ricks begins, with three key blunders at the end of first Iraq war. Much of the core of Saddam's power was the Republican Guard, they had the best troops, the best discipline, and the best equipment. More importantly, they were Sunni, and very loyal to Saddam. Most of them were permitted to escape. Second, Bush's people were convinced that Saddam was so weakened by the war that his regime was likely fall of its own accord. Bush issued a call for the Shia and Kurds to rebel, and they did. Finally, and most treacherously, when the still powerful Republican Guard crushed then, Bush refused them even minimal help. General Norman Dumbkopf, the hero of the war, even approved an exception to the no-fly rule which allowed Iraqi helicopters to bomb and shoot up the rebels.

It was a treachery that reeked of Stalin's infamous call on Warsaw to rebel against the German occupiers, after which he halted his divisions' advance to allow the Germans ample time to exterminate the best and bravest of Poland. It's only a guess, but I suspect the Poles didn't exactly welcome Stalin as a liberator, either. In Bush's case, the disgusting act seems have been propelled more by inattention, dithering about the results of Shia power, and the native Bush stupidity rather than by Machiavellians geopolitical calculation.

This betrayal, and the resulting re-consolidation of Saddam's power rankled some American official intellectuals, most notably Paul Wolfowitz, and he became the chief agitator for removing Saddam. His motive appears to have been a sincere interest in overthrowing tyranny and establishing democracy. Another example of the alleged pavement of the road to Hell.

Ricks has a lot of trenchant quotes from all sides of the internal debates. One that sums Wolfowitz is:

There are two types of villains in Washington, hacks and fools. He [Wolfowitz] isn't a hack. He's deeply misguided, he's impervious to evidence, and he's a serious, thoughtful guy.

Which leads me to wonder what the hell somebody impervious to evidence *is* thinking about. That ideology, and that imperviousness to evidence, is the hallmark of the Bush II presidency. Wolfowitz was one of the most influential of the fools that got us into Iraq, but he wasn't lonely in that regard. It's hard to imagine how the worlds most powerful military could have so many fools at the top of the payroll, but all the top ones were appointed by Bush, so maybe there is no mystery.

It's been an expensive experiment in folly, and it's not over yet. The only encoraging sign is that the American people seem to have awakened from their long stupor.