I don’t have much to say about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners that isn’t obvious; I’m just another guy who’s depressed and heartsick at the images on my screen. Just one point:
I don’t know what the Administration was thinking when they appointed John Negroponte, infamous for his role in Honduras in the 80s, as the ambassador to the new Iraq. I don’t know what they thought he could accomplish. I have my suspicions, but they might be unfairly colored by my general impression of the Administration.
At this point, hopes are irrelevant. Negroponte will be a massive detriment to the mission in Iraq. His story will be told again and again in the Arab press, and he will be a crystallizing symbol for anti-American forces who don’t believe in American goodwill. If the Administration wants to demonstrate its concern for the hearts and minds of Iraq, it will be necessary to find a replacement for Negroponte. (Among others.)
UPDATE: Tim Dunlop beat me to this point. The more, the merrier.
UPDATE: As is usually the case, Dwight Merideth has some thoughts that are well worth reading.
UPDATE: More from Jacob Levy on Rumsfeld:
Whatever credibility Rumsfeld had left has now been fatally undermined. It’s time to demand that he take responsibility and resign; he can no longer do his job anyways. The failure of the White House to understand that seems to be tied to a sense that, while Bush can judge Rumsfeld, no one else has any business doing so. Utterly obtuse.
{ 19 comments }
neil 05.06.04 at 7:56 pm
Your Economist link is broken.. it says “An unexpected error has occured.” Which is actually a pretty good summary of a lot of things I can think of.
Ted Barlow 05.06.04 at 8:00 pm
Huh. Works for me. It’s an editorial calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation or firing.
asdf 05.06.04 at 8:34 pm
Tom Harkin, baby.
A good man.
Keith M Ellis 05.06.04 at 9:26 pm
Meredith’s points are spot-on. The Bush admin, and especially Bush, talks about morality and responsibility, but its actions are inevitably completely self-serving and political. Period.
Nat Whilk 05.06.04 at 11:06 pm
The linked editorial seems to say that an act warranting a public chastisement is necessarily an act warranting a demand for resignation. Why should that be the case?
Jacob T. Levy 05.06.04 at 11:18 pm
Well, in the first place this wasn’t even a public chastisement. It was an officially-leaked-by-an-authorized-but-anonymous-official private chastisement. These people can’t even take responsibility for the release of the information of their evasions of responsibility.
In the second place, because public criticism (or even authorized-etc-etc criticism) of one’s own subordinates is a bizarre thing. Bush should want a publicly effective Secretary of Defense. Either that should be Rumsfeld, and the dressing-down should have remained private in order not to undercut Rumsfeld in public; or it should be someone else, and Rumsfeld should go. To hobble one’s own subordinates and leave them in office, to make plain that they do not have your “full confidence” even as you say that they do, is self-defeating. It also undermines the implicit deal between superordinate and subordinate: “Do your job well and I’ll protect you. Don’t, and I’ll find someone who will.”
Matt Weiner 05.06.04 at 11:20 pm
Of course the editorial is not saying, implicating, or what have you any of the case. It is saying that what has happened is so severe that nothing short of resignation will do, and also that Rumsfeld doesn’t really deserve to keep his job on the merits.
Chastisement is free. Resignation means something.
Matt Weiner 05.06.04 at 11:22 pm
Blech–should be “not saying or implicating anything of the sort”–namely that an act warranting a public chastisement is necessarily an act warranting a demand for resignation. As Nat should know full well.
Also, what Jacob said.
Nat Whilk 05.07.04 at 12:01 am
Matt Weiner wrote:
“Of course the editorial is not saying, implicating, or what have you any of the case.”
Sorry. I wrote “editorial” when I meant “blog”. Here’s what the blog said:
“If Bush genuinely thinks Rumsfeld failed him and failed to fulfill his own responsibilities, then surely the time has finally come to demand Rumsfeld’s resignation. If not, then an authorized public humiliation is unjustified.”
Matt Weiner 05.07.04 at 12:10 am
Ah, you mean Jacob Levy’s piece. Apologies–my imputations were unjustified, then, especially since Jacob does seem to argue that it’s never right to publicly chastise a subordinate without firing him.
Nat Whilk 05.07.04 at 12:15 am
Jacob T. Levy wrote:
“Well, in the first place this wasn’t even a public chastisement.”
Uh, you were the one to use the word “public” (assuming you’re the Jacob Levy who runs the blog in question). If you’d like to call it “private”, that’s fine. If you’d like to call it “semi-private”, that’s fine, too. I don’t see how it changes the point.
“In the second place, because public criticism (or even authorized-etc-etc criticism) of one’s own subordinates is a bizarre thing.”
What’s bizarre about it? It happens all the time: College presidents criticizing (and apologizing for the actions of) athletic directors; athletic directors criticizing (and apologizing for the actions of) coaches; coaches criticizing (and apologizing for the actions of) players; newspaper editors criticizing (and apologizing for the actions of) reporters; department chairs criticizing (and apologizing for the actions of) their faculty members; bishops criticizing (and apologizing for the actions of) their priests, etc.
“Bush should want a publicly effective Secretary of Defense.”
Yes, he should. Now, is a Secretary of Defense who’s committed an offense worthy of public (private, semi-private) criticism necessarily ineffective? That’s the question.
John 05.07.04 at 4:02 am
Give John Negroponte a chance. We have much better weapons to blast the trouble-makers these days than we used to back in the troubled cold war years of the early 80s, He is the right man to do a good job coordinating a smoke out of the last few enemies.
IXLNXS 05.07.04 at 5:23 am
As the occupation continues both sides get lost in the smoke screen of fighting over who will run things, totally forgetting the one who should be running things is a native Iraqi, not an American lacky. The game continues with little views to the gross evidences of treason in the past. The smoke and mirrors machine running full blast.
hilzoy 05.07.04 at 6:50 am
“I don’t know what the Administration was thinking when they appointed John Negroponte…”
Thinking? This administration?
Lee Bryant 05.07.04 at 11:13 am
I know it’s nit-picking, but you say “he will be a crystallizing symbol for anti-American forces who don’t believe in American goodwill” – it is not just anti-Americans who don’t believe in American goodwill WRT Iraq – nobody in their right mind can possibly think that the Administration thinks of Iraqis as human beings. The appointment of Negroponte is entirely consistent with their aims and objectives and shoudl surprise nobody.
Da 05.07.04 at 1:34 pm
Brad DeLong, quite accurately I think, refers to the spectacle of a ‘private’ dressing-down of a cabinet officer by the president appearing in the headlines of hundreds of newspapers, as ‘dingbat Kabuki’.
Gary Farber 05.07.04 at 5:34 pm
“Tim Dunlop beat me to this point. The more, the merrier.”
I blogged the NYRB piece
two weeks ago, Ted.
Hope you’re watching the live hearings at this moment. The “Fire Rumsfeld” folks provided extra entertainment.
Jimmy Doyle 05.07.04 at 6:25 pm
“Dingbat kabuki”!
Viva DeLong.
Doug 05.10.04 at 8:36 am
Rumsfeld isn’t going anywhere, and neither is Rice, and neither is Powell, and neither is Feith, and neither is Wolfowitz, and neither is Rove, and neither is Bush. Negroponte will be going somewhere, namely Baghdad.
The one and only way to change this picture is to vote Kerry in November. If you’re not an American, then help to make sure that all of the Americans you know are registered and vote — overseas Americans vote in their last state of residence, no matter how long they may have lived abroad, and thay may vote in federal elections, again, no matter how long they may have lived abroad.
Comments on this entry are closed.