Let me get this straight...

[jducoeur]

... we're supposedly trying to establish a sovreign and legitimate government in Iraq, right? Which is respected in the eyes of its people, right? Which means disabusing those people of the idea that it's simply a puppet of the US, right?

And having President Bush drop in on Iraq without telling the Iraqi government is supposed to help this how? Surely that has to be one of the most concise ways to make us look like the Arrogant Overlords -- it shows that we care, but it also shows a fundamental lack of respect. I'm sure that the decision was made on security grounds, but that's even more counterproductive: it says that we don't trust the Iraqi government. Not exactly the message we're supposedly trying to send here...

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Did he not tell the Iraqi Government? Or did he not tell many people, including the US Cabinet?

The Iraqi PM met with him within hours of landing. That doesn't sound like it was much of a surprise.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Never mind. Checked some news stories. As I commented elsewhere, did he wear a t-shirt that said "Iraq=pwned" too? Wow.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Well, to be fair, he didn't tell the US government either...

[hakamadare.livejournal.com]

i think you have made a logical error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise) at the outset.

[(Anonymous)]

How can you *possibly* know what *actually* happened? Sounds like FUD.

- Eric

[jducoeur]

This is based purely on widespread news reports. It is possible that they are all incorrect, in which case my premises are wrong. But this is *not* pulled out of my ass -- it is based on news reports this morning from a number of disparate and reputable sources, which are quite explicit that the Prime Minister of Iraq was not told of the visit until it was a fait accompli. (See, for example, the CNN article on the subject: "U.S. officials told al-Maliki of Bush's arrival in Baghdad only after the president's Nighthawk helicopter had landed in a secure airfield in the former Green Zone following a six-minute trip from the Baghdad airport.")

If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite it. Otherwise, knock off the bullshit accusations of "FUD". You continue to act like a rude jackass here, and are invited to piss off...

[(Anonymous)]

The "FUD" association is in response to your critical, political comment which seems to stem from ideologically driven pettiness.

Many prudential acts can be flecked with collateral impurities, but so long as the intentions and positive results dwarf the adversities, then they deserve applause.

President Bush may be a mediocre leader (I personally believe so); however, intellectual honesty demands that we approvingly credit ANY President for beneficent action.

I'll give you the point on widespread news reports. I do have available to me much deeper data than the traditional public news sources, however I cannot disclose any of it - so it really can't be cited by me officially.

[jducoeur]

Eric, now that I'm calmer, I still mean it: please go away.

You posted a couple of (frankly fairly patronizing) notes on the weekend, wishing me a calmer time. You don't seem to get it, though. When I post my notes, I'm almost always quite calm -- perhaps slightly offended on principle by what I see as political foolishness, but rarely *angry*. Not much makes me angry, but *you* consistently do so.

I'm not quite sure why I find your commenting style so problematic. It's clear that you come across to me as consistently confrontational, and much though I enjoy a good debate, I dislike confrontation. But regardless of the reasons, the reality is quite clear: you consistently piss me off, even when you aren't intending to. Even your calmest messages "read" as deliberately offensive to me. Damned if I can say why -- in 20 years on the Net, you're the only person to cause this reaction. But it is so.

So I'm asking, honestly and calmly, for you to stop reading my journal. That's unfortunate -- your viewpoint is certainly *different*, and your insights sometimes useful. But the way you present them keeps spiking my blood pressure, and I simply can't afford that. Sorry...

[edolecki.livejournal.com]

I might consider it - if only to benefit your fragile health.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

...it shows that we care, but it also shows a fundamental lack of respect.

It shows a fundamental desire to live. The security implications make an announced visit impossible.

That should be darned obvious, and should eliminate anyone from considering it as "high-handed" of the US. He's taking a huge personal risk as it is, that's enough of a sign of respect.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

If he had acknowledged the primacy of reality over his own policy fantasies in any of his *other* actions, maybe I would accept this behavior. Funny how, when it's his *own* life on the line, he suddenly (if only implicitly) acknowledges the danger of the Iraq situation.

[edolecki.livejournal.com]

Funny how common sense can somehow be overlooked by some in regards to this situation.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

When, in all the history of Homo sapiens have leaders ever behaved otherwise?

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

Actually, quite a lot of leaders have worked on the basis of reality rather than fantasy in the majority of their dealings.

It's not that I object to self-preservation, per se. I just note that his ability to *perceive* the danger removes credibility from his attempts to reshape reality by fiat. It makes him look less insane, but more hypocritical.

[jducoeur]

I dunno -- we'll see how it actually winds up perceived on the Iraqi street, but it seems counterproductive to me. I mean, the whole point of the trip was to say essentially, "We believe in and support this government", but they reportedly didn't trust it enough to even tell the Prime Minister about the trip in advance. The actions seem to belie the words.

I would say that the trip as stage-managed shows *support*, certainly. But I don't see it as really demonstrating *respect*, and it certainly shows distrust. The fine details matter a lot. There's a world of difference between not having told anyone *but* the Prime Minister, and not telling the Prime Minister himself. The one action would have been quite respectful; the other really isn't...

[herooftheage.livejournal.com]

I had this funny little idea of what it would be like if all the other world leaders started to just drop into Washington unannounced for a quick chat, and then when they get rebuffed for whatever reason, pointing at this sort of behavior and saying "but clearly you think it's ok..."

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Not only dropping in unannounced, but then asking for the President to come to them, instead of them going to his place.

[(Anonymous)]

Some people prefer to trumpet the discovery of a grain of coal in a barrel of pearls – rather than to acknowledge the obvious and overwhelming value of the pearls themselves.

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

Could you speak more plainly, please?