Now that all the hoopla has died down over the
release of President George W. Bush's Decision Points it is a good time
to review the book and recall some forgotten history. In his introduction Bush
described his book as thematic, not a traditional autobiography. Many will
enjoy this format as I did. This also explains why the review presented here is
not in chronological order.
I have never been enthralled with the Bush
Presidency. With that bias I sincerely wanted to hear what this man had to say.
Unfortunately, I was dismayed with the early
chapters of the book as he emphasized his born again Christianity. Ordinarily,
Christian leaders, excluding the Pope, of course, do not wear their religious
beliefs on their sleeves due to unintended consequences. In my limited
experience Bush appears to be unique in that type of presentation. One
unintended consequence of that approach is the implication that if one is only
doing the will of God, then one can do not wrong. This is an anathema to a
democratic people, particularly a nation that encourages the freedom of all
religions, or even the lack of one.
He writes, "When I ran for president, I decided to
make a nationwide faith-based initiative a central part of my campaign." He
then adds later, "I was always wary of people who used faith as a political
weapon suggesting they were more righteous than their opponents." He then cites
his favorite Biblical verse, Matthew 7:3. Apparently, he was unaware of the
contradiction of his statements. Perhaps, this is an example of the pot calling
the kettle black.
Later, he mentioned his 2003 State of the Union
Address in which he described a British intelligence report that Iraq "sought
to buy uranium from Niger." He then states, "The single sentence in my
five-thousand word speech was not a major point in the case against Saddam,"
dismissing the authority of the President of the United States in making such a
statement. He then adds, "The British stood by the intelligence." This simply
is not true. British intelligence shared the information, information
not being intelligence, but British intelligence was very skeptical and they
said so. Bush's own intelligence agencies were extremely skeptical. The State
Department's small intelligence unit was also quite leery of the information as
well. The Niger/Iraq connection was not used in Secretary of State Colin
Powell's indictment against Iraq in his presentation before the U.N. Security
Council in Feb. 2003.
There was a moment during his chapter, "Day of
Fire," September 11, 2001, that I nearly wept because I remember. He described
the support our nation received after that horrendous day, support from Canada,
Italy, China, France, Japan, and Germany, leaving out many others who offered
their support, including Iran, Russia, and numerous Muslim nations. He then
wrote, "The coalition of the willing in the war against terror was forming, and
-" for the time being -" everyone wanted to join [emphasis is mine]." That
is somewhat true of the U.S.-led NATO invasion of Afghanistan in Oct. 2001, but
that support evaporated with his unilateral decision to attack Iraq. Initial
support for that invasion amongst our major allies included Britain,
Italy, and Spain. First, Spain dropped out, then Italy, and finally our 51st
state and loyal ally, Britain. The "coalition of the willing" in Iraq now
numbers one nation, the United States.
On page 187 he described "George's plan" regarding
the invasion of Iraq. George's plan? George was George Tenet, Director
of the CIA. That is truly remarkable in two ways. It is rather odd for the
director of the CIA to develop war plans for an invasion. That responsibility
normally falls under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Also, "George's
plan" entailed sending less than 1500 ground troops to secure Afghanistan, a
region roughly the size of Texas. There is little doubt that contributed to the
fact that we are still fighting this war in its tenth year.
Later, Bush tries to explain away how "we allowed
bin Laden to slip the noose at Battle of Tora Bora. He states, "If we had ever
known for sure where he was, we would have moved heaven and earth to bring him
to justice." How about moving in two infantry divisions?
Next, he tries to describe the achievements of
Operation Anaconda, or the first six months of the war. Today, the paragraph
reads as though he is living in a dream world. He also attempts to prove a
negative, stating that one of his accomplishments was that there were "" no
retaliatory attacks on our homeland." Many detest the term , homeland.
More importantly, there is no definitive proof that his invasion of Afghanistan
precluded any attack on American soil.
He then tries to gain the sympathy of the reader
for the fallen in Afghanistan by recalling Abraham Lincoln's letter to Lydia
Bixby of Massachusetts who lost five sons in the Civil War. Ah, come on, cut me
some slack here, gees.
Finally, he admits his error in judgment, well,
sort of. He states, "This strategy worked well at first. But in retrospect, our
rapid success with low troop levels created false comfort, and our desire to
maintain a light military footprint left us short of the resources we needed. It
would take several years for these shortcomings to become clear [emphasis
is mine]." This, of course, begs a question. How is it that he, Rumsfeld, and
the JCS did not know that less than 1500 troops could not secure Afghanistan
and its rugged terrain? They might have consulted a lieutenant in basic training
" or a history teacher. Afghanistan did not gain the reputation of the
graveyard of empires for nothing.
To his credit, later he explains the result of his
folly as the Taliban administered payback. Bush writes, "My CIA and military
briefings included increasingly dire reports about Taliban influence. The
problem was crystallized by a series of color-coded maps I saw in November
2006. The darker the shading, the more attacks had occurred in that part of
Afghanistan. The 2004 map was lightly shaded. The 2005 map had darker areas in
the southern and eastern parts of the country. By 2006, the entire southeastern
quadrant was black. In just one year, the number of remotely detonated bombs
had doubled. The number or armed attacks had tripled. The number of suicide
bombings had more than quadrupled."
One can grudgingly dismiss the Afghan war as pure
folly. Egregious errors of judgment by political and military leaders are
common in war. Clausewitz referred to it as the "fog of war." One cannot so
easily dismiss the American pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, which has proven to
be an unmitigated disaster as compared to folly. The aggression against Iraq
violated American laws, international laws, the U.N. Charter, and the Nuremberg
Charter. In addition, the war was based entirely on false premises,
intelligence products created by micro-managed intelligence units within the
CIA and the Pentagon. So it is, with respect to the war in Iraq, I sought
answers from former President Bush.
His chapter on Iraq began dramatic enough. "On
Wednesday, March 19, 2003, I walked into a meeting I had hoped would not be
necessary." The following paragraphs read like a bad movie script that would be
rejected by Hollywood as too melodramatic. It began with "Each commander
answered affirmatively."
"Tommy [Franks] spoke last. "Mr. President,' the
commanding general said, "this force is ready.'"
"I turned to Don Rumsfeld. "Mr. Secretary,' I said,
"For the peace of the world and the benefit and freedom of the Iraqi people, I
hereby give the order to execute Operation Iraqi Freedom. May God bless the
troops.'" I have a hard time picturing a hardened politician saying that to a
cynical and somewhat abrasive Secretary of Defense.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
