Good Advice

There's something a bit absurd about this Washington Post headline: "Bush Listens Closely To His Man in Iraq: In White House Deliberations on War, Gen. Petraeus Has a Privileged Voice."

This makes it seem as if Bush suddenly arrived in the White House in media res sometime in 2007 and starting trying to figure things out. The surge was already underway, different advisors had different takes, and Bush came to rely on General Petraeus who now has a "privileged voice" in deliberations. But that's not how it went at all. Bush has, from the beginning, always listened to people who tell him what he wants to hear -- starting a war with Iraq is a great idea, continuing a war with Iraq is a great idea. If Petraeus told Bush tomorrow that he should admit failure and open up a regional dialogue on how best to manage an American withdrawal from Iraq, suddenly his privileged position would be gone. The stature of various advice-givers is baked into the cake of the content of their advice and it's not at all hard to tell what Bush wants people to tell him.

Photo by Staff Sgt. Lorie Jewell, U.S. Army

Comments

"in medias res"

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 6, 2008 4:02 PM

Maybe he really meant "in mediis rebus?"

Posted by Gene O'Grady | April 6, 2008 4:25 PM

Or "in medias rhesus" since he's just monkeying around?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 6, 2008 4:30 PM

Bush has, from the beginning, always listened to people who tell him what he wants to hear

A sloppy, disingenuous claim. I think what you mean is that Bush listens to people who want to achieve what Bush wants to achieve, or at least commit to helping him achieve it. It's hard to imagine anyone in a position of decision-making power anywhere preferring to take advice from those who want to achieve the opposite of the advisee's objectives.

Posted by MarkG | April 6, 2008 4:49 PM

It's hard to imagine anyone in a position of decision-making power anywhere preferring to take advice from those who want to achieve the opposite of the advisee's objectives.

I hope you're never in a position to decide something that matters to a lot of people.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 6, 2008 4:52 PM

Bush reminds me of a business partnership I was in. Out of 5 partners, I was the only one who disagreed with a particular business proposal. My objection would not stop the proposal going through, as we were a majority rule board. Despite this, the chairman would not let it go, either I agreed or he would buy me out. I saw the writing on the wall and agreed to be bought out. It seems with Bush, he just has them resign.

Posted by Michael Fisher | April 6, 2008 5:09 PM

It's hard to imagine anyone in a position of decision-making power anywhere preferring to take advice from those who want to achieve the opposite of the advisee's objectives.

What if you objectives are unrealistic, fanciful, and impossible to achieve? And one of your advisers points this out to you? Oh, yeah, fire that guy and get one who will tell you what you want to hear. Sounds like a recipe for success, doesn't it?

For example, General Shinseki. He obviously "didn't want to achieve the same objective" as the President -- why, he had the gall to disagree with the administration! So when he said that hundreds of thousands of additional troops should be used for this fiasco, they fired him. Problem solved!

Why would anyone listen to advice from someone that doesn't already agree with them? See if you can figure it out.

Posted by jim | April 6, 2008 5:17 PM

Dammit! Here I am thinking I'm going to be the first one to correct Matthew's knowledge of dead langauges. "There are only 7 comments," I think. "Surely, I'll be the first one up with the correction." Wrong. Very first comment, Jeffrey Davis is there.

From this, we conclude that either 1) The commenters around here have some pretty sizeable knowledge; 2) We are just dicks to jump in with these minor corrections; 3) Both 1 and 2.

Posted by Francisco The Man | April 6, 2008 6:45 PM

My objection would not stop the proposal going through, as we were a majority rule board. Despite this, the chairman would not let it go, either I agreed or he would buy me out.

There's a certain perverse logic here, mostly relating to ego. If you objected, and the plan succeeded, you would (I'm assuming) have received a share of the rewards, since you were a partner, and the chairman would have regarded your benefiting from "undeserved" gains. If the plan failed, the chairman would be pissed that you would have the stature to remind him that you were right and he was wrong, which would have endangered his authority. For people of a certain small-minded mentality, buying you out was a win-win proposition.

Of course, you'd never want to work with such people, who are the essence of everything that's wrong with corporate culture. A lot of us saw that a mile away when it came to GW Bush. On the other hand, people like Fred admire it.

Posted by Tyro | April 6, 2008 6:48 PM

From this, we conclude that either 1) The commenters around here have some pretty sizeable knowledge; 2) We are just dicks to jump in with these minor corrections; 3) Both 1 and 2.

1) 3 years of Latin > 40 years ago.
2) Why, yes: pedantry is next to comedy.
3) Everyone else here is playing Guitar Hero which I profoundly stink at.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 6, 2008 8:11 PM

The problem right now is that Petraeus is playing the Cheney game plan: blame Iran for everything bad in the world, especially Iraq, thus justifying a war on Iran.

This was Petraeus testimony in his first Congressional report, and according to news articles, the Brits fear this will be an even stronger emphasis in his current report.

He's a goddamn Bush-Cheney pawn, nothing more. This is while Admiral Fallon had to go - he knew this and didn't like it. Now they're probably going to push Betray-Us up to be Commander of Cent-Com, and get their Iran war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 6, 2008 8:35 PM

Read this, for an example of what Petraeus is going to tell Congress:

Iran joined militias in battle for Basra
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3690010.ece

IRANIAN forces were involved in the recent battle for Basra, General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is expected to tell Congress this week.

Military and intelligence sources believe Iranians were operating at a tactical command level with the Shi’ite militias fighting Iraqi security forces; some were directing operations on the ground, they think.

Petraeus intends to use the evidence of Iranian involvement to argue against any reductions in US forces.

Dr Daniel Goure, a defence analyst at the Lexington Institute in Virginia, said: “There is no question that Petraeus will be tough on Iran. It is one thing to withdraw troops when there is purely sectarian fighting but it is another thing if it leaves the Iranians to move in.”

Abu Ahmed, a senior military commander with the Awakening, the Sunni tribal movement cooperating with US forces, said progress was largely the result of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army ceasefire.

“When the Mahdi Army decides to resume its activities, neither the American troops nor the Iraqi government will be able to stop it,” he said.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 6, 2008 9:57 PM

Iran joined militias in battle for Basra

Ok, we're all fucked.

Posted by goethean | April 7, 2008 11:22 AM