Bush Versus Bremer

Yes, it's a bit like picking sides in the Iran-Iraq War. Nevertheless, in light of the President's efforts to convince the country that he has no idea why the Iraqi Army was disbanded, Paul Bremer's decision to unleash the documentary evidence to The New York Times is certainly of interest. Bremer seems to have the goods here:

“We must make it clear to everyone that we mean business: that Saddam and the Baathists are finished,” Mr. Bremer wrote in a letter that was drafted on May 20, 2003, and sent to the president on May 22 through Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense.

After recounting American efforts to remove members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein from civilian agencies, Mr. Bremer told Mr. Bush that he would “parallel this step with an even more robust measure” to dismantle the Iraq military.

One day later, Mr. Bush wrote back a short thank you letter. “Your leadership is apparent,” the president wrote. “You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence.”

Of course, maybe when Bush said Bremer had his "full support and confidence" as he conducted these measures he had his fingers crossed behind his back and didn't really mean it. Bet the liberal media didn't consider that angle.

Comments

All the high-sounding rationales and policies behind the Iraq War are just babble. The only ones that touch all the events without contradictions are oil and Bush's vanity. Originally, I think, helping-out Bush's domestic policies also figured in. When the country turned sour on Iraq and the war impeded his policies, Bush turned his back on that and just reverted to the petulant smirking jackass so fabled in song and story.

Vanity, saith the preacher. And oil.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 4, 2007 9:12 AM

Bush appreciates decisiveness -- it doesn't matter what the decisions are or what the logical fallout of them is.

I don't see any contradiction between Bush saying "You have my confidence and support" and saying later "but I have no idea what exactly he was talking about." It's the power of magical or wishful thinking -- if you concentrate really really hard on things getting better, and you're a Good Person, and make "tough decision" -- things will be better, and nothing will convince you to the contrary.

Things aren't going wrong -- and if they are, it certainly wasn't your fault.

It's the same sort of thinking that allowed Bush to sit and listen to a briefing about Katrina, and say "we're fully prepared for anything" -- and BELIEVE it -- and still be suprised and shocked when he toured the devastation, wondering why somebody didn't take care of it.

Posted by zmulls | September 4, 2007 9:44 AM

I note that the article doesn't actually quote the letter in saying that Bremer was going to "dismatle" the Iraqi Army, although who knows, since so little is actually quoted from the letter. That appears to be the Times's spin. Seems to me, from what the article says, that the letter says that Bremer was just going to deBaathify the Iraqi Army, not dismantle it altogether. But, of course, the Times is going to spin it to try to play a little gotcha game with Bush.

Where are the actual letters? I want to see whether it actually says that Bremer was going to "dismantle".

In any case, I think Bremer was right to dismantle the Army. You've got to do away with all of Saddam's terror apparatus, not just a little of it.

Posted by Al | September 4, 2007 9:55 AM

Al,

Bremer's first response when asked about this decision is usually to argue that the Iraqi Army disbanded itself. I've never heard anyone ask the obvious follow-up: did you try to reconstitute it?

I agree with your point about making a clean break from Saddam's military, but wouldn't it have been better to have tried to call up the Iraqi Army (whoever would show up) and paid them to make sand castles in some remote part of Iraq? It might have reduced unemployment and instability and kept some potential recruits out of the insurgency.

Posted by Fred | September 4, 2007 10:08 AM

In any case, I think Bremer was right to dismantle the Army.

What never seems to amaze me is how the Bushistas can advocate for a policy, enact it, have such a policy end up proven to be a mistake, and then keep claiming that it was a good idea. The truth is that there would be no situation or evidence that would ever convince you that this was a bad move. Or any other policy decision made by the Bush administration.

Posted by Tyro | September 4, 2007 10:09 AM

Bremer was just going to deBaathify the Iraqi Army, not dismantle it altogether

A fine distinction made by Al. The Iraqi army could simply have been run by all the officers who were not Baathists! It is particularly galling that this path was not followed because the non-Baathist army officers were among the most effective in Iraq, flying from city to city on beautiful unicorns and firing deadly lasers from their eyeballs.

Posted by DivGuy | September 4, 2007 10:13 AM

How mmuch will Bremer get smeared for this?

http://political-buzz.com/

Posted by chrisfl | September 4, 2007 10:16 AM

Of course Bush didn't know what was going on. The report was THREE AND A HALF PAGES.

Brush to clear, boys, brush to clear.

Posted by tomtom | September 4, 2007 10:33 AM

What zmulls said. There's nothing there to indicate that Bush even read Bremer's letter, much less understood it.

But I continue to be amazed that Bush can claim ignorance of one of the most significant components of his Iraq policy and have that accepted as a defense rather than an even more shocking indictment.

Posted by KCinDC | September 4, 2007 10:38 AM

Re: "Yes, it's a bit like picking sides in the Iran-Iraq War."

Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but picking sides in that war seemed pretty easy to me, even at the time. A dictator invaded another country without provocation, and then employed chemical weapons against them. How is that a hard call?

Or maybe that's your point? How could anyone be sympathetic to Chimpy, no matter how big a loser Bremer is.

Posted by Jim W | September 4, 2007 11:00 AM

Well, yeah, this is because (as many have suggested here and elsewhere) that Junior is a willfully ignorant, petty, mean-spirited, self absorbed child of a man. There is overwhelming evidence to support this, and virually none to contradict it. Nobody with any basic level of understanding of Junior or "his" administration believes otherwise. Blog posters like Al, who are almost certainly paid shills (or willfully misguided losers with too much time and money) may dilute this conclusion a smidge, but really, who's kidding whom? Bush, Jr. is a jackass. He didn't read shit, he was busy playing computer golf or some other form of "Big Leader Delegation". How Russert et al can continue to sugarcoat this obvious fact is truly incredible.

Posted by ed | September 4, 2007 11:03 AM

...and anyone paying attention knew his from the moment Bush, Jr. took the national stage in 1999. Jeebus, what a waste.

Posted by ed | September 4, 2007 11:05 AM

What they said, I see no contradiction between both sides arguments. Bremer wrote what he wrote, Bush either didn't read it or, more likely, did and didn't understand what he said. But he detected resoluteness in Bremer and so commended him for it.

Posted by El Cruzado | September 4, 2007 11:17 AM

it's nice to know that you can count on al to start your week with a chuckle. as the article makes abundantly clear, loyal soldier bremer, tired of being smeared, called up the times to make it clear that he was being smeared.

he notes - in direct quotes - that the policy of not reconstituting the army was discussed up the chain of command and then referenced in the letter to bush.

whether bush read anything in the letter or not, whether cheney and rumsfeld ever discussed the real policy with bush or let him simply continue on in fantasy land, whether bush (as he did with the theft of the al gore line about war, recession, or emergency justifying budget deficits) has convinced himself of something that isn't true: that's beyond us.

but it's not beyond us to note that if bush thought that this order violated policy, he picked a remarkable way of showing us - by noting, offhandedly, 4 years later, that he wondered what the hell happened.

an al somehow wants to justify or accept this as evidence of...god knows what.

Posted by howard | September 4, 2007 11:27 AM

Maybe I'm being nitpicky here, but picking sides in that war seemed pretty easy to me, even at the time. A dictator invaded another country without provocation, and then employed chemical weapons against them. How is that a hard call?

So, we're supposed to be on the side of the Ayatollah who had just taken 52 Americans hostage for the 444 days? The Iranians were still holding our citizens hostage at the time!

Sometimes I read the comments on this site and I feel like I'm in a parallel universe. The lefty-Bizarro universe says "Hey, we should have been on the Ayatollah Khomenei's side - never mind that he was at that times holding our citizens hostage and calling us the Great Satan."

At least the comment was right that it isn't a hard call.

Posted by Al | September 4, 2007 11:32 AM

Hey Al,

How many of those hostages got back safely. Wasn't it...ALL of them?

And how about that Iranian civilian airliner we shot down? How many of those people got back safely?

Posted by Jim W | September 4, 2007 11:46 AM

For Al:

Bremer's Letter:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/04bremer-text1.html

Bush's response:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/04bremer-text2.html

The letters were linked to the online version of the article.

If I had to guess, I would say Bush read the first and last sentences (if that) of Bremer's tome before firing off his reponse.

Posted by Ben | September 4, 2007 12:20 PM

From Bremer's letter:

"I will parallel this step with an even more robust measure dissolving Saddam's military and intelligence structures to emphasize that we mean business."

Seems pretty clear. It sounds from the article's recent quotes from Bremer that Rumsfeld/Bremer/(possibly) Cheneyites had the Army policy cooked up between them, and snuck it by Powel/Rice.

Their masterstroke was informing Bush of the policy by putting it in the middle of a three page letter. They knew his one weakness.

Posted by Ben | September 4, 2007 12:24 PM

The Al-troll is an interesting study. Here he says Bush was right to dismantle the Iraqi army--over at Drum's site, he says Bush didn't know, and it's all Bremmer's fault. So which is it, Al? Or is this just another example of the brilliant way Bush meets the challeges of his presdiency without ever regaining consciousness?

Posted by rea | September 4, 2007 12:48 PM

The whole discussion about the disbanding of Saddam's army is mostly a distraction. There were obviously some very negative consequences of disbanding the army, but I think Bremer's comment is valid that it was not a simple situation with a clearly better alternative - the soldiers weren't exactly all coming into work each morning in a mannerly fashion waiting for new orders from the foreign invaders who had just defeated them. And the Shiites and their militias waiting to take power were not going to want the Sunni army hanging around anyway.

It's an interesting detail to look back on, but the only reason it iss getting this much press right now is that war supporters are trying to use it as a scape goat for the failure of the war. There's a stubborn insistence that the invasion was a good idea and would have worked out just swell except for maybe a very few number of singular colossal fluke mistakes in the process, like disbanding the army, Abu Ghraib, etc.

And it's also always fascinating to me how much the Bush administration prefers to portray themselves as ignorant and disfunctional instead of bad decision makers or willful deceivers. History is replete with great leaders who made honest mistakes and were willing to lie to the people if they thought it was for the greater good. But it's amazing the lengths that Bush, Gonzales, et al go to try to convince us that they just have no awareness of very important things happening under their watch.

Posted by Will | September 4, 2007 1:05 PM

Hey Al,
How many of those hostages got back safely. Wasn't it...ALL of them?
And how about that Iranian civilian airliner we shot down? How many of those people got back safely?
Posted by Jim W

Great effort to establish a framework of Lefty moral equivalency. Then argue that within that framework, the actions of the Iranians invading US soil, blowing up embassies elsewhere, helping blow up Marines in Lebanon, and launching a massive wave of murders inside and outside Iran was morally superior to a US Navy ship accidentally shooting down an airliner the Iranians failed to announce was coming.

The Gulf was a hostile air threat environment at the time, with Iranians quite fond of launching feints to light up American air defenses, especially in the wake of Iranian air attacks on Gulf vessels. Besides the Iranian threat, the Iraq-Iran war also had the USS Stark hit mistakenly by an Iraqi exocet missile.

I'm afraid the only thing you established, Jim W, is your anti-Americanism and favoring the enemy.

Invading another nation's embassy is an act of war, and Carters weakness & failure to react as a competent Commander-in-Chief cost him his Presidency. His passivity helped launch the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the radical Islamic movement (Shiite, then Sunni after Iranian radicals took over the Grand Mosque in Mecca and they started exporting Wahabbism in defense of the Shiite threat) in the ME that came home to America on 9/11.
It was a big deal that the world expected America to react to militarily, when they didn't, they saw America post-Vietnam as fading and the Soviets and Islamists rising. Nixon at the time called Carter foolhardy, endangering Americans down the road to accept Iranian kidnapping and extortion.
Reagan, HW Bush, and Clinton later said they agreed with Nixon's assessment.

*********************
Bremer is of course concerned that he will be the Fall Guy for the 2 disastrous decisions: (1)the Iraqi military eradication, rather than keep it together as the US did with the Wehrmacht and Imperial Japanese Forces (they were paid to muster, work on reconstruction jobs for 2-3 years after the war as the economy rebuilt enough for them to leave the military and take jobs). (2)Starting de-Ba'athification then turning over the rest of de-Ba'athification to the "democratically elected" Shiite radicals at Interior, who used it to effectively eradicate Sunni participation in the "New Iraq"...

The best Bremer will get from the history books, as the Man-in-Charge that signed off on those calls, was that he was surrounded by a cabal of Neocons and Chalabi exiles that influenced him to do so, and clueless higher-ups also in the Neocon-Chalabi sway like Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush thought the Bremer Decisions were good.
His call. And he was the one taken full credit for both in front of the cameras at the time.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 4, 2007 2:24 PM

Great effort to establish a framework of Lefty moral equivalency.

Was it not Al who drew a moral equivalency between taking hostages before returning them alive and invading a country, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and using chemical weapons on them?

Posted by Tyro | September 4, 2007 3:15 PM

sure, another great insight from chris ford: george bush worked for paul bremer. nice one, pal: up to your usual level of wisdom....

(we won't even bother with your fantastical illusions about the iranian hostage situation.)

Posted by howard | September 4, 2007 4:51 PM

Thank you for posting the links to the original letters, Ben. (They were not included in the version of the story that Matthew linked to - perhaps they were in some other version of the story?)

In any case, as I suspected, Bremer's letter doesn't talk about disbanding the Iraqi Army, it talks about deBaathifying the Army. In fact, it draws an explicit parallel to other civil agencies that were deBaathified. Were those other agencies disbanded like the Army was? I don't think so. If Bush was to draw anything from this letter, it would be that the Army would be left intact but deBaathified, just as the civil agencies were.

Accordingly, I think it is pretty clear that the Times is spinning this pretty hard - the truth is nowhere even close to what the Times says it is. (I can understand why Bremer himself is spinning his story, but supposedly objective newspapers aren't supposed to be doing that.)

Posted by Al | September 4, 2007 5:57 PM

Also, I try to ignore this stuff, but to respond to rea:

The Al-troll is an interesting study. Here he says Bush was right to dismantle the Iraqi army--over at Drum's site, he says Bush didn't know, and it's all Bremmer's fault. So which is it, Al?

As mentioned in the Dora thread, the posters at Drum's site under the name "Al" are a parody - a legacy from years ago when I actually posted there (back when the comments section there was any good).

Posted by Al | September 4, 2007 5:59 PM

Al, you can try to interpret "dissolving Saddam's military and intelligence structures" as referring simply to de-Baathification of those organizations, but that seems like a pretty awkward stretch to me. How exactly does an army continue to function, or even exist, when its structure has been dissolved?

Posted by Nate | September 5, 2007 3:55 PM