Frontline’s ‘Bush’s War’: Not About Bush or His War
Frontline’s big fifth-anniversary of Iraq show, which begins airing tonight, is a “narrowly focused, warmed-over Donald Rumsfeld-Dick Cheney hatefest.”
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
If you don’t want to read this entire review, or watch all four and a half hours of Frontline’s big fifth anniversary Iraq extravaganza, Bush’s War, here’s the short version:
Bush lied, people died.
It’s hard to know where to start with everything that is wrong with this two-part series, airing at 9 p.m. March 24 and 25 on PBS. So I’ll start with what’s right with it.
As television goes, it is a relatively comprehensive review of the major decisions and controversies of the Iraq war, with a little 9/11, Afghanistan precede. It makes some, though not many, attempts to be fair and thorough in presenting the perspectives of both sides. When you watch it, you might learn a few things. You’ll remember a lot. It won’t change your mind about anything.
We’ve got that out of the way. On to what’s wrong. I’m not sure in the space I can reasonably fill here, short of exceeding Frontline’s own 4:30-hour limit, that I’ll be able to enumerate them all. It’s daunting.
Let’s start with the title. This documentary is not actually about George Bush, or his war. It is about his Cabinet’s infighting. In fact, they probably should have called it “The Cabinet’s Infighting,” though that might not be a big viewer draw. Maybe “The Cabinet Infighting of Bush’s War.” Too clunky. How about: “Cheney-Rumsfeld Lied, People Died.” That’s catchier, and would not only get the viewers but lots of press.
Because this entire documentary, from beginning to end, is not even a Bush-bash, it’s all Cheney-Rumsfeld bash. Bush, in the documentary named after him, gets some cameos, a walk-on here and there. He does have some speaking parts, he’s not entirely a spearholder. But Frontline makes it clear in what disregard they hold the president of the United States. He is a chump who gets pushed around and manipulated by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, despite the best, but tragically flawed efforts of Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet. While the influence of those parties cannot be denied by any fair observer, it is not until he finally decides to get rid of Rumsfeld that the president of the United States presented as having much in the way of independent thought at all.
The Frontline documentarians, of course, avoid expressing any opinions. They rely on the liberal use … pun intended … of a series of scribblers from the New York Times, the Washington Post and other publications to do that for them. In fact, when Frontline can’t find actual participants to do so, Frontline relies on ink-stained wretches to ascribe motives to people and in one astonishing case, to fantasize what a particular meeting must have been like, along with presenting as fact the conjecture that results from the newsman’s usual second-, third- or fourth-in-line position in the game of information telegraph.
Of the actual participants in events, there is a heavy reliance on well-known Rumsfeld-Cheney adversaries such Richard Clarke, Richard Armitage, with no mention of the fact that they, and virtually everyone in this depiction of recent history, have axes to grind and their own sullied legacies to patch up. Few people actually close or aligned with Rumsfeld or Cheney appear to have been interviewed. Possibly because they knew how this was going to end up.
Frontline very much carries the water of the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, the advocates of which apparently couldn’t be prevailed on to shut up, hence all the airtime. Though Tenet ultimately is thrown under the bus by Frontline as much as it describes Bush having done so, the CIA’s view of both Afghanistan and Iraq gets a friendly airing. One of the more remarkable, unchallenged and unelaborated gripes is that after Sept. 11, 2001, the eager, action-ready CIA was forced to twiddle its thumbs in Afghanistan for almost an entire month before the U.S. military finally showed up on Oct. 7. This is stated without apparent irony, even though we’ve been informed that George Bush intended a sober, measured approach. There is no discussion of the fact that 26 days might in fact be lightning speed when it comes to planning and moving forces into place for the takedown of a foreign regime on its own turf.
Frontline takes a diversion into Guantanamo, where you will learn that the Cheney-Rumsfeld junta threw out the Geneva Conventions and authorized military tribunals, the turning on of lights, removal of religious materials, and other atrocities. I must have missed the part where they discussed the fact that the hated Crusader Gulag at Guantanamo does not actually violate the Geneva Conventions and that the people held there are unlawful combatants. Horror is expressed at what Gitmo might inspire our adversaries to do to our own soldiers. I must have missed the part where Frontline discusses what al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, the Iranian regime and others actually have done to the civilians and soldiers they have seized. The videotaped pleas for mercy, the forced confessions, the use of hostages to blackmail governments, the beatings, the beheadings, the bodies dumped by the road, etc.
We’re now done with Afghanistan, which apparently is not part of Bush’s war except to the extent it enabled the Cheney-Rumsfeld regime’s Iraq agenda.
Frontline moves on to offer some detail on the stock versions of the pre-war intelligence failures and supposed distortions. It is largely an unquestioning review of conventional wisdom, and you’ll learn nothing here. The belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is presented largely as a fact pushed by Cheney rather than as something believed by every major intelligence agency in the world, including those of nations that vehemently opposed this war. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin is once again allowed to oppose the war on humanitarian grounds with no mention of France’s keen interest in doing business with Saddam. The “16 words” controversy is presented by none other than Joe Wilson, with no mention of the view that – yellowcake deal or no yellowcake deal — Saddam Hussein in fact had been in the market for uranium in Africa. You can also remain innocent of the fact that Joe Wilson is himself a controversial figure whose qualifications for his task are highly questionable and were in fact a bizarre case of nepotism.
To Frontline’s credit, however, the utter failure of the CIA to have a clue what was going on in Iraq, to the point of lacking an intelligence estimate on Iraq’s WMD, is noted.
This is probably a good place to mention one of the (other) fundamental shortcomings of this documentary. It takes place in a fishbowl. A Washington D.C. fishbowl, in which history largely doesn’t exist. The Sept. 11 attacks are presented only as a horrific event that prompted Cheney and Rumsfeld to start rabidly pushing for the invasion of Iraq. The history of Saddam Hussein, and the many reasons why his removal made sense and still makes sense get lip service at best. The fact that the UN sanctions regime was on the verge of collapse, the danger that posed, and what was subsequently learned about Saddam’s plans to resume his weapons programs in that event get no airing. The questions that remain about what Saddam might have done with the dormant elements of his WMD programs and whether they were shipped to Syria, not mentioned. The positive geopolitical ramifications of the removal of Saddam Hussein … Libya’s capitulation and last summer’s revelation that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program after the invasion of Iraq, if only briefly … not part of the scope of this project. Presumably the recently released Pentagon study that found extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agents and al Qaeda came out after this Frontline series was put to bed. But there is no reason to think Frontline, like most of the American media, wouldn’t just have reported the “no direct operational links” part.
All of that history is in the rearview mirror and academic at this point … except perhaps the Iran part. All of that is arguably irrelevant to our nation’s current concerns … except perhaps the Iran part. And that’s why Frontline’s most egregious omission is in the second part of its series, on the conduct of the war.
There is little to argue with Frontline’s presentation of the post-invasion period at first. Rumsfeld horribly and aggressively bollixed Iraq, from going in too light, to refusing to consider and prepare for the aftermath of the invasion, to refusing to recognize the problems as they mounted over a period of three years. The insider view of the top may provide you some new insight here. The daily bomb roundup and intensive atrocity fixation that has marked the American media’s generally abysmal coverage of this war has tended to avoid any serious examination of larger trends and generalship, or distort it through a lens of Bush-induced disaster. Frontline does give in to some of that shocking headline-oriented coverage in the war period, lingering wistfully on Abu Ghraib. The bomb reportage focuses on significant trends, watershed events and their effects in a more meaningful way, but suffers from a repetition of footage that hardly seems necessary.
More significantly, Frontline offers a concise review of the leadership struggles, culminating with the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld. Here Frontline misses a great ironic snark opportunity, though it is not hard to see why. In portraying Rumsfeld’s last year or so as an effort to just get the troops out of Iraq, marked by the “light footprint” pullback to bases, heavily armored patrols and an effort to build up Iraqi forces, Frontline fails to observe how closely that approach resembles the abandonment-at-all-costs desires of the Democratic-led Congress that came in screaming for Rumsfeld’s head.
Removal of said head is a triumphant moment for Frontline, but sadly, it is also the end of the program. In what is Frontline’s greatest omission and failure, the counter-insurgency strategy is, charitably, only marginally part of this presentation. The development of the surge strategy gets short shrift. To the extent it is discussed at all, it is presented as something Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow dreamed up, based on Col. H.R. McMaster’s experience in Tal Afar, apparently highlighted to further stress what a bonehead Rumsfeld is. The more complex gestation of that strategy is not even alluded to. Its implementation is presented as something only intended to prevent Bush from exiting office with a defeat. The entire year of 2007 is relegated to a single narrated paragraph at the end.
Let me repeat that. The entire year of 2007 is relegated to a single, intoned paragraph, which basically suggests disaster is imminent. Here, read it yourself. It’s only a few lines:
NARRATOR:
Violence is down in Iraq. They are cautiously calling clear, hold and build a success. But at a cost. The troops and reserves are stretched dangerously thin. The military worries how long the surge can be sustained. In his last State of the Union address, George W. Bush made a final plea to history …
PRESIDENT BUSH:
“The mission in Iraq has been difficult and trying for our nation. But it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed. We must do the difficult work today so that years form now, people will look back and say that this generation rose to the moment, prevailed in a tough fght, and left behind a more hopeful region and a safer America.”
NARRATOR:
Soon Bush’s war will be handed to someone new.
Well, Frontline calls it a plea. Given the great political pressure out there to abandon Iraq to a wretched fate that would likely dwarf anything we’ve seen to date, while ceding domination of that troubled region to the terrorism-supporting Islamic radicals of Iran, I’d describe it more as an admonishment for the United States to remain engaged in the world, to recognize its obligations and see to its own interests. But that’s a minor issue.
While Frontline had thrown away significant air time marveling at the notion that so little could be known about an American wartime commander, Gen. George Casey, Frontline didn’t manage to find any time at all to mention the name of the most significant Iraq commander of all, Gen. David Petraeus.
You could view all four and a half hours of this series and remain innocent of any knowledge of the dramatic turning of the tribes in Anbar that began in late 2006, as the Sunnis woke up to their own interest. Of the hard-fought, highly successful campaigns of 2007 to run al-Qaeda out of Baghdad, Diyala, the southern “Triangle of Death,” not a peep. The fact that Moqtada al-Sadr has been intimidated into maintaining his truce, and that his forces are divided, nothing. The growth and increasing operational role of the Iraqi forces … it’s like it never happened. The revelations about the ongoing role of Iran in Iraq and the dangers Iran poses to the broader region … a struggle in which the future of Iraq is indisputably a lynchpin … nada. The repeated failures of the Democratic-led Congress to force a precipitous withdrawal, and the sharp divisions within that Democratic majority, not a squeak.
Never mind the risk of genocide were the political incompetents of the anti-war movement able to effect their goals. On anything that might assist the American electorate in understanding this poorly reported war as we head into a critical election year, Frontline is utterly silent. It is shockingly irresponsible, and in its absence, a gross distortion of the situation in Iraq, in the broader region and in Washington.
But this documentary is not in fact about the Iraq War, or about American interests in a new century, where circumstances have been dramatically altered by events set in motion long before George Bush took office. Nor, as I mentioned, is it actually about George Bush. Bush’s War is a narrowly focused, warmed-over Donald Rumsfeld-Dick Cheney hatefest.
Despite all these faults, “Bush’s War” may be worth watching, as a starting point for discussion and debate. It may also be good for your circulation. If you hate the Bush administration, your prejudices and acrimony will be nurtured. If you happen to hold any other view, I’d recommend viewing this as a quaint artifact of the political battles of the first decade of the 21st century. I’d caution, however, it is four and a half hours you won’t get back.
My apologies for failing to be much more concise in reaction than Frontline was in its presentation.
Disclosure: I accepted a paid Frontline advertisement on my Webpage, www.julescrittenden.com, as I have accepted advertising for other PBS programs in the past. I have endeavored not to let this remuneration for advertising space influence this review in any way.
Jules Crittenden blogs at Forward Movement.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
52 Comments
syn:Thanks for viewing something on PBS that this American won’t watch; I appreciate the sacrifice made enduring 4 1/2 hours of pure misery.
That said; I’m getting rid of my cable subscription, I simply cannot waste anymore of my brain cells watching TV.
Mar 24, 2008 - 5:17 am Sid:If there is a war that could be called moral, right and necessary it is the Iraqi War. The President George W. Bush’s moral height and political responsibility have been largely demonstrated. Instead, his critics have only demonstrated stupidity, vulgar demagogy, and, first of all, moral misery and civic irresponsibility. They are evidently panicked: the success of the republican politics where others have failed before puts infinitely away their return to government. Therefore, they try against all evidence and against the most vital national interests, to convince themselves and others that Bush’s politics don’t work. But they forget (or they simply don’t want to see) that Bush’s politics is not only his own, but the result of objective historical need (let us put it in “Hegelian” words). Moreover, in his specific realization, it is the work of a genial diplomat, Condoleezza Rice, who has succeeded where her predecessors displayed only mediocrity. In any case, History will not change her course for this “politicians in Washington” who desperately fight for their political survival, using the lowest procedures that in the end will harm them.
Mar 24, 2008 - 6:08 am dan:There were WMDs. Russia moved them; it has been exquisitely attuned to political victories since the Cheka formed. The Bush Administration refuses to fight because they cannot evade or trump the “USA planted it charge.”
Mar 24, 2008 - 6:36 am Boris:“There were WMDs. Russia moved them”
Even if this right wing fantasy were true, Bush would still be incompetent.
Mar 24, 2008 - 9:17 am narciso:The real punchline is we paid for a presentation; that couldn’t fit on a
Al Jazeera schedule without much effort. Clarke, who opposed the attack on Bin Laden with the UAE princeling in 1999; after the first famous PDB, Armitage, who repaid Libby’s favor, by betraying him and
erasing his role in the affair; (not to mention his pre-War connections to Caspian Oil interests)My only surprise, Mr. Crittenden, is you know Frontline’s hackwork, and advertising is in part
endorsement of said views; it will most likely like Wikipedia; be the received version of events of the 1st decade of the 21st century.
Mar 24, 2008 - 9:20 am Mark E.:Frontline has run a series of hit piece on Bush and conservative causes. I EXPECT it from them now.
Mar 24, 2008 - 11:45 am saaxir:Frontline was complicity making documentary about sadam hussein pre-iraq war and let the left wing use as their propagandaRichard Pearl used F/line to convince there were WMD and saddam was dangerous. Frontline distributes propaganda for the whitehouse. Frontline sold the pre-iraq war to the american audience, thru PBS. I stopped watching them.
Mar 24, 2008 - 1:17 pm aj:PBS is a joke. I pulled funding from this anti-american, anti-Israel cabal long ago.
Mar 24, 2008 - 1:22 pm Fontessa:The fact that the piece is titled “Bush’s War” says it all. And if you think this is lousy programming, you should watch some of the children’s shows.
Mar 24, 2008 - 1:48 pm syn:“Even if this right wing fantasy were true, Bush would still be incompetent”
So sayeth the TV people living in an illusion created by the unreal; someone get that guy some makeup, it’s running all over the place.
Mar 25, 2008 - 6:39 am newton:Please tell me… Why does taxpayer money (OUR money!) pay for this garbage? I can watch a much higher quality show on the History Channel.
It’s time for Americans to demand de-funding… of P-BS!
Mar 25, 2008 - 7:09 am Jerry:Jules, please give me your take on why Saddam was soooo(sic) dangerous before the invasion since you say that Frontline failed to give adequete background. Also, given Bush’s shrunken world-view maybe the reason the piece seemed to be like a Wash DC fishbowl is because in fact the main characters are no more than bony teleosts swimming around in their own small fishbowl.
Mar 25, 2008 - 10:14 am Arch:The Frontline piece is about the state of affairs, staff, not-so-hidden agendas at the Whitehouse/CIA, etc. from 911 to start of Iraq. It demonstrates how NOT READY FOR PRIMETIME Bush was during his first administration. It is called BUSH’s WAR - because just like all previous presidencies - THE BUCK STOPS AT HIS DESK - it was HIS decision or his lack of ability to truly make a decision for HIMSELF. We are all/will be paying for what will be one of the worst political blunders in our lifetimes.
Mar 25, 2008 - 2:38 pm drewbbc:please issue a correction to your story above:
you state above: “Presumably the recently released Pentagon study that found extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agents and al Qaeda came out after this Frontline series was put to bed. But there is no reason to think Frontline, like most of the American media, wouldn’t just have reported the “no direct operational links” part.”
this is wrong. from the Pentagon: “A Pentagon-sponsored study of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 invasion shows that no direct operation link existed between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. The study of the documents reportedly was completed last year by a federally funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses. see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88154003
Mar 25, 2008 - 2:43 pm hank rearden:people still defend this chimp and his war. most of these comments are pretty pathetic and so is this article. it’s not a secret anymore. ya’ll can stop covering for simian in chief
Mar 25, 2008 - 4:09 pm Rob:“So sayeth the TV people living in an illusion created by the unreal…”
Mar 25, 2008 - 7:52 pm Mark E:We could say the same of you.
Welcome to the spectacle through which “just” governments disappear behind only an image of justification.
“That which appears is good; That which is good appears…”
Same old Bush bad, journalists good manure. How can these producers be so dishonest and narrow minded?
Mar 25, 2008 - 8:28 pm Andrew Benjamin:Crittenden obviously knows what his critics do not.
Google: The Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998
Google: Clinton signs The Iraqi Liberation Act.
Google” Mylroi’s “Who is Ramzy Yussef?” Mylroi was Clinton’s special assistant for Iraqi Affairs.
Google: Worldnet: “Ashcroft nails Clintonite
in setting blame for 9-11″
Google: Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (an Arab source) and find March 16, 2002 “Iraqi Spies Reportedly Arrested in Germany”
You will find out that Bush did NOT lie; that there WAS a connection between Saddam and al Q’Aeda; the war began with AND by Bill Clinton when Bush was the governor of Texas, and Iraq had hostile intent against the West and made connections with Atta in Hamburg.
The rest of what you read in the MSM and hear from Pelosi & Company is Aesop’s Fables.
Mar 25, 2008 - 9:25 pm eric taylor:good review, i went here to see what the other side thought, as a self proclaimed liberal I loved the movie, I think you have it a fair treatment for a conservative, I was surprised you gave it as many props as you did.
also, yes, I was aware of the irony that Rumsfeld’s plan of just get the hell out, is now the democrat’s current plan. We would have been better served to just get the hell out like Rumsfeld wanted from the very start.
Cheney is chillingly evil in this series. Like, Palpatine the dark darth lord evil.
Mar 25, 2008 - 9:27 pm J Akins:Recognizing the hundreds of billions in cost, maybe a trillion, and thousands of soldiers’ lives lost, an economics question arises. Which is less costly (in dollars, lives, international diplomatic relationships and alliances, etc.); invasion and an arduous nation-building occupation or improved domestic homeland security with increased international police action to dissuade “terrorists”? Answer that question five years into Bush’s Iraq War.
Neoconservatives, supporters of the Bush Administration or those who whole-heartedly believe in the goodness of the Iraq War simply must watch the Frontline report Bush’s War and answer to history. Of course, those same people are likely to immediately label the report left-wing propaganda without the benefit of watching the show and that is unfortunate.
Practically every plan, idea, assumption and strategy advanced by Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives was incorrect. The level of incompetence uncovered by “Frontline” is stunning. The program interviews dozens of persons directly involved in the war and subsequent attempt at nation-building (e.g. – Bremer, Garner, etc.) who shed light on the folly of the process. History and many Americans ask, simply put, what possibly compelled policy makers to believe that the outcome of the war and nation-building would be an easy success considering the realities of tribal and sectarian hatreds? Was there really naïve innocent belief that Iraqi’s would treat Americans like Parisians did in 1944 and they would not loot their own government or use the existing weaponry against American occupiers? The Frontline show is available on the Internet so please watch it and try not listen to Dittoheads. Actually I want John McCain to watch the Frontline program and immediately offer his policy beliefs within an investigative journalist interview as to if America can militarily impose it’s will successfully on Middle Eastern nations.
Mar 25, 2008 - 10:54 pm rich:I stopped watching Frontline after the ‘Store Wars’ episode. I happened to know the people involved and had intimate knowledge of what went on in that situation. The Frontline show was incredibly biased and contained many distortions. The situation as presented by Frontline had little to do with reality. They have no credibility as far as I am concerned.
Mar 26, 2008 - 8:20 am Jakester:I guess since it doesn’t jibe with the right wing story, it must be contemptible. And this is the crap that is sending the mainstream media down the river, partisan hacks hanging out in their living room slamming everyone and everything that contradicts their limited and petty worldview?
Mar 26, 2008 - 9:20 am tinman:This blog’s review of this frontline piece is biased for the right - and even assuming some left-sided bias in the actual documentary, because apparently (according to the comments on this post) PBS is supposed to be an evil left wing terrorist supported organization-
even so, the staggering ammount of incompetence and infighting among the bush administration members is inexcusable and horrifying
when are you right-wingers going to wake up and realize that what has happened in Iraq is a tragedy, both for US troops and the Iraqi public, all the fault of a few overambitious and grandstanding old men who advised this inexperienced president who himself was too foolish to realize his mistakes even as he continues to make new ones
Mar 26, 2008 - 10:20 am joe:I watched a front line documentary after the first gulf war which was very truthful. Since the first gulf war doc, front line slowly went south, I mean to the left. Therefore I do not watch it anymore.
Mar 26, 2008 - 10:24 am Bryan:I watched this program, found much of it biased, but found much of it scary, especially how the top people in charge bungled something this huge, while innocent people paid the price with their lives. Rumsfeld can retire with his millions of dollars, just like Cheney and Bush will, but the thousands of people who have been killed due to their incompetence will not. That aside, funding PBS for projects whose content you don’t happen to like is all the more reason to do so. Sometimes putting a wrench in the gears is what’s needed. I always find it interesting how people, largely right wing, demand that we stop taxpayer funding for a news program (or PBS) they don’t happen to like, but they won’t make any stink at all about 3 TRILLION dollars spent on a long, costly war with nothing to show for it. Sounds out of balance to me, like most of the right wing pundits out there.
Mar 26, 2008 - 11:57 am Doug:As a Canadian sitting here on my couch watching and listening to the goings on in America i must admit im still a little confused: So cheating on your wife with an intern is good enough to “try” and get your ass impeached because after all “you lied under oath “. And telling the American people and the world a lie :”we know for a fact he has Nuclear weapons” LETS GO TO WAR! YEHA ! cost= Trillions of dollars, tens of thousands dead,image forever tarnished along with its credability in future situations throughout the world etc etc isnt enough to get your ass fired kicked out of office or impeached ?
Mar 26, 2008 - 12:32 pm Fascinating:Well im still confused what does get your ass fired these days as President?
Dear Jules Crittenden,
Fascinating perspective you have. So this is not about Bush and his war? May I remind you that Bush is the “Decider”…Bush chose his cabinet, and he made the final decisions. I guess that is too sublime for a right wing neocon to comprehend.
Why would you ever think about holding your precious Bush Administration accountable for any of their actions or decisions during their time in public office?
Your perspective is nothing short of delusional fanatacism…
Mar 26, 2008 - 2:09 pm Dave:Doug - Must be an interesting horror show for you to watch from up there. Ever think “Fall of Rome” Doug?
I do, all the time now.
Mar 26, 2008 - 4:45 pm hank rearden:I just finished watching the second half (TIVO) and i have no idea what Frontline episode Jules Crittenden is blogging about. I came over here (second time) to see what the hard core neocons are thinking. I can’t say i am surprised, but the ignorance and denial is mind boggling. Call me a lefty, but you would be completely wrong. I am a goldwater reagan conservative. I have no idea what this administration is, but it certainly is not conservative. neither are the defenders of bush and this war. It absolutely makes no sense. why continue to sign your name to this? They failed at every level (tactically and strategically). One not even need to get into the area of accusing Bush of lying to put forth a solid case of complete failure…at all levels. I am so sick of hearing about this. Fly the boys home and let the place do what it’s going to do. If gas goes to $8/gallon…well, oh well. use less of it. Even at $10 it’s still going to be cheaper than $3Trillion.
Mar 26, 2008 - 5:46 pm hank rearden:by the way…note my name before you call me a lefty. Any of you neocons know who hank rearden is? didn’t think so. dumbazzes.
Mar 26, 2008 - 6:13 pm Texan:Hey Frontline! Why not dispense with any vestige of fairness and just call your series, “Chimpy-Hitler’s War”? And Doug, we’re coming for your water, pal. (jeez, what a simplistic simpleton)
Mar 26, 2008 - 10:03 pm david:It would be humorous if it weren’t so sad. So many of the previous comments continue to be nothing but unmoved partisan bickering. There are a few people that have thoughtful comments and are willing to engage in a discussion, where one side actually listens to the other side. But the majority of comments here are intended to defend the indefensible or to assign blame when solutions need to be found.
Just because your politicians act like children, doesn’t mean you have to.
Mar 27, 2008 - 5:20 am David:Ok, Frontline is biased? Exactly what were the facts that they got wrong? Rumsfeld wasn’t wrong in just about everything he said and did? Bremer actually did a good job? Fine, attack the program. But I’m curious what your documentary of the Iraq War would look like?
(I love the Rumsfeld press conference when he says the operations in Iraq may take 6 days, possibly 6 weeks, but I doubt six months. What a SECDEF!)
Mar 27, 2008 - 7:29 am Stephen:The politicians are always the willfully ignorant ones. We have destroyed a country, killed untold thousands to fight terrorism. The problem is, there were no terrorists in Iraq before we got there, no WMD, and the CIA knew it and this administration with its extreme conservative ignorance, rushed to attack the wrong target. We completely blew the chance to kill Bin Laden and actually make a difference. Being the only super power, it is our duty to make informed decisions, not lock out people that may disagree. If you fill your cabinet with ass kissers, you’re going to feel blissfully great while you make totally wrong decisions and get a lot of people killed.
Mar 27, 2008 - 12:56 pm dph:I’m curious how those of you who support what we are doing in Iraq would present a documentary of it? How would you explain the strategic necessity for the US to take on this war in light of other compelling strategic needs?
Who would you bring to the screen to bolster your arguments that would meet your tests of no journalists, etc?
What would you present as representative of success so far?
What I hear in the neocon criticism of this show and any other program, movie, article, book, etc. is that the producer/author is biased, stupid, or is a Bush-hater. Give me an idea of what a thoughtful informative discussion of Iraq would be.
Mar 27, 2008 - 3:35 pm Stephen:How can a thoughful informative discussion take place, when the war was started for the wrong reasons in the first place? That’s like having a thoughtful inforamtive discussion of why the earth is flat.
Mar 27, 2008 - 5:05 pm Chuck:I think the true effect of going into Iraq will only be shown on TV some 10-15 years from now…
…and hopefully on the HISTORY channel!
Mar 27, 2008 - 5:22 pm Mortalyn Flux:Thank you for the counterpoint. I did watch the entire thing.
While I disagree with you on some points, I did make some similar observations. Notably the ironic similarities between Donald Rumsfeld’s “lightfoot” strategy and the desire to pull out by some Democrats. I also found the omissions interesting. Plus the fact that the main reason for me watching it was to warm up for coverage of the events during 2007, as much of this material had been covered in a previous Frontline episode and general media coverage.
The underreporting of the media on this war is an understatement. Basically, they grab a camera, stand in front of a building, and start blabbing. Then you get a clip or two of a guy on the street.
This series has shown me how little most Americans, including myself, know about the war, and it makes me angry. Very little depth and understanding about the political, infrastructural, religious, economic, historic and sociological complexities of leveling a country and building it back up is hardly, if ever, discussed in the various media outlets.
It just goes to show what a waste of time watching the headline news is. One needs to pick up a book or two in order to begin to truly understand.
How did we ever expect to build a country without understanding its history, its religion, its diversity, and without working up from a grass-roots level before a single shot was fired?
This tragic war is a result of our ignorance, and the perpetuation of our ignorance by the media and the political spin of both parties.
Mar 28, 2008 - 7:25 am dph:Iraq is not a tragedy - it is a debacle. Anyone with minimal knowledge of Iraq knew back when invasion was being discussed that this would end exactly this way - a violent stalemate among competing factions in Iraq.
Combine the history of Iraq with the hubris of the neocons and the outcome was inevitable. If you have only looked at the headlines, often dominated by the lies from w and his minions, you have missed the real story. There have been many books, articles, and TV/Radio reports reporting the real story.
Frontline did an excellent job of bringing the whole story together. When you view it in a short span of several hours rather than have the story dripped on you over the years the horror of what we have done is overwhelming.
Mar 28, 2008 - 8:33 am Michael:The measure of a good documentary is the spectrum of view of all those interviewed. If those who are pro and those who are against aren’t equally and ably represented then the documentary has little value.
While this one may have good information it is fatally tainted by preconceived agendas.
Mar 28, 2008 - 8:41 am David:Mortalyn, you say “The underreporting of the media on this war is an understatement. Basically, they grab a camera, stand in front of a building, and start blabbing. Then you get a clip or two of a guy on the street.” I tend to agree; however, a big part of the reason is that so many areas of the country are not safe for journalists to move about unfettered and unrestricted. Hard to believe I’d be saying that five years after the declaration that major combat operations are over.
Mar 28, 2008 - 8:13 pm dph:Michael:
Sounds like a mathematical approach to the truth. People with bad ideas and opinions don’t get the same respect as those people with well though out, intelligent opinions. Right?
Mar 28, 2008 - 9:37 pm dph:Where are the neocon apologists? Are you just not there or afraid to engage in thoughtful debate?
Mar 28, 2008 - 10:09 pm Stephen:I agree with Chuck. One of the great disappointments for me came when I realized Afghanistan would take a back seat when the administration began to push for attacking Iraq. The small Special Forces ODA teams in Afghanistan were killing terrorists, real terrorists, in shocking numbers. Then we dropped the ball and went elsewhere. Generals historically don’t really care for these small unit specialized operations, and would prefer large forces to command.
The Frontline story of 2015 may show that not only was Iraq the wrong target, but the greatest threat to western democracy breathed a sign of relief when we changed the focus to Iraq and began to nurture even more hatred for the west.
Mar 29, 2008 - 7:34 am Noocyte:dph; Point of order: Name-calling and ideological baiting are not customarily regarded as especially enticing invitations to “thoughtful debate.”
In a very small nutshell, the main strategic task which faced the US after 9/11 was to put pressure on the feeder streams of global Jihad, to engage those in the Muslim world who abetted or at least tolerated the virulent and violent strain of takfiri Islamism which had struck us, and to induce them to change their behavior.
Clearly the main source of the Jihadi ideology and resource stream lay in Saudi Arabia, and its ruling clan’s Saitan’s bargain with the Wahhabi clerics and operatives which exported Jihadism abroad. Unfortunately, even leaving aside the devastating effects of military action in SA on the global petroleum markets, the simple fact is that if a bunch of kufirs put boots on the sands of the land of the Two Holy Cities, then we could expect a global Islamic rising the likes of which we can only imagine in our most dreadful nightmares.
Saddam’s Iraq was a pestilence waiting to be unleashed on the world as soon as the sanctions regime fell. Something was going to have to be done about it sooner or later. In addition to this, a bold system perturbation in the heart of the ancient Caliphate would send a message to the Saudis without the need to strike directly. This was the main justification for toppling the Baathist regime, and the fact that it was commonly accepted that Saddam had WMD provided a far more palatable proximate cause for action, regardless of how (apparently) unfounded those near-universal estimates turned out to be.
Shortly after the fall of Saddam’s Baghdad, the Saudis ramped up their anti-terror cooperation, Libya abandoned its nuclear program, and Iran apparently shelved its nuclear weaponization programs. Also, Lebanon expelled its Syrian military controllers, and a raft of pro-democracy movements appeared worldwide. Jihadis, shamed by the rapid conquest of Iraq, swarmed into Mesopotamia to oppose us, and were thus forced to fight at a time and place of our choosing. The fact that the guerrilla nature of that conflict was very badly misread by Rummy’s model of post-invasion Iraq does not invalidate the initial strategy any more than the myriad tactical and strategic blunders throughout WW2 invalidated its central goals.
The prospect of a stabilized, democratic Iraq (albeit clamorous and spasmodic in its birth-pangs) is making totalitarian regimes worldwide (and most particularly those with an Islamist bent) VERY nervous. This is a good thing, even if their efforts to make the project fail will cost much and bring much misery. Those whose actions or inaction would embolden these regimes (and the violent non-state actors which they employ) miss the point, to the peril of us all.
Documentaries like this present the opportunity to engage in dialogue on matters of the utmost importance. It is when they degenerate into partisan polemics that we lose out on the fleshing out of these crucial narratives. Both sides have important points to make, but if this continues to be seen as a bitter zero-sum shouting match, the only beneficiaries will be our foes.
Mar 29, 2008 - 9:56 pm dph:Noocyte:
Thanks for rising to the rhetorical bait! I was frustrated by the failure of the you neocons to respond and my intent was to start the dialog that you have begun.
Thank you!
My problem with your argument is that the attack on the US on 9/11 was done by an obscure but very dedicate and well disciplined group of terrorists with absolutely not relationship to Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfield, et al were looking for a reason to attack Iraq long before the 9/11 as a way to forcing “democracy” on a recalcitrant Mid East regime. The Bush invasion of Iraq was not a response to 9/11 but rather 9/11 was an excuse to play out neocon fantasies - particularly replaying Viet Nam and ending in a “vistory”.
Anyone with knowledge of the history of Iraq and what actually happened in Viet Nam knew from the beginning that this would end in failure, as it has.
Trying to explain the neocon response to 9/11 as “a bold system perturbation in the heart of the ancient Caliphate” is sophistry.
Did we need to make a response? Absolutely!!
But what we needed was a multidimensional response that rooted out the problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan and an adherence to our basic values.
Torture, special rendition, suspension of basic human rights, etc. only played into those who oppose us. There is real strength in ideas, something stronger than pure military might. And Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, et al didn’t understand that and have thus failed us.
Mar 29, 2008 - 10:20 pm Bill:My sentiments exactly. After reading over the Frontline letters section, I was beginning to wonder if people watched the same program I did. As you said, it just fed a lot of people what they already wanted to hear. It really was a misnomer and a hatched job at that.
Mar 30, 2008 - 10:30 am Noocyte:dph: “Thanks for rising to the rhetorical bait! I was frustrated by the failure of the you neocons to respond and my intent was to start the dialog that you have begun.”
I’m fairly new here, having followed Ed Morrisey over from the late, lamented Captain’s Quarters blog, like a Grateful Dead fan on the first leg of a Phish tour. I don’t know if it will be worth it to make this reply, but I will have a go at it. The opening of your response is the sort of taunt which implies that having initially engaged your response, I have already lost face. It carries the implicit assumption that you have nothing to learn from me and that I am incapable of absorbing anything you have to say. How inclined would you be to discuss anything with someone who approached you thus?
dph: “The Bush invasion of Iraq was not a response to 9/11 but rather 9/11 was an excuse to play out neocon fantasies - particularly replaying Viet Nam and ending in a ‘vistory’.”
Prior to 9/11, the idea of toppling Saddam had little to do with Spreading Democracy; Bush’s stance during his campaign was that of a much more modest, “realist” foreign policy. Saddam was a demonstrably destabilizing force in the region, and thus, from a realist position (which is, after all, about preserving stability) would have had to go, soon or late.
“Neocons” (an increasingly ill-used term which originally referred to Liberals who adopted a more proactive approach to the promotion of Liberal ideas and ideals abroad) had very little place at the table during the early Bush administration (recall that it was Cheney, as SecDef under Bush 41, who had left Saddam in power after Gulf War 1). It was only after 9/11 that their ideas were judged to have the highest probability of success in attacking the roots of Islamist terrorism, and that the liberation of Iraq emerged as a vital theater of operations in that larger endeavor. With respect, you are unduly conflating the two broad rationales for unseating Saddam’s regime, and it is skewing your narrative.
You see, the group that attacked us on 9/11 was *not* an “obscure” group at all. Would that they had been! In point of fact, they were the pointed end of a very long spear whose shaft stretched through much of the Muslim world. Now, the vast majority of Muslims were not pushing that shaft along. A fair number were doubtless trying to hold it back…at the risk of some nasty burns and splinters. An uncomfortably large number, however, were letting it slide on by. The regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (the sources of most of the 9/11 hijackers) were only too content to preserve their purchase on power by allowing their disaffected and radicalized youths to direct their rage toward the West, and felt (with good historical reason) that they could continue to do so with relative impunity.
Thus the previously Stability-minded Bush administration was placed in the ungainly position of deliberately and decisively destabilizing the calcified and festering status quo of the Arab Muslim world, such that it could lurch back into motion. Hopefully in a direction which would prove less hospitable to radical Jihadism. There is much sophistry on both sides of this question, to be sure…but the underlying strategy is very much as I described it: a system perturbation (h/t to Thomas Barnett for that formulation, BTW) with an eye toward second-order change. Simple tweaking simply would not do, as we had seen over and over again.
Your allusion to Viet Nam is a fascinating one, and could provide fodder for a MUCH longer response. Suffice it to say that it is both a better and worse analogy than I suspect you suspect. If you like, I propose that you look into the differences between Gen. Westmoreland’s and Gen. Abrams’ approaches to the war in SE Asia. You may find it edifying reading.
dph: “Did we need to make a response? Absolutely!!
But what we needed was a multidimensional response that rooted out the problem in Afghanistan and Pakistan and an adherence to our basic values.”
Here we are very much in agreement. Given the deep and systemic socio-cultural dis-ease which so pervades so much of the Muslim world, and the aggressive metastases which it spawned, it is incumbent on us to use every level of our civilization to combat its spread (much as we did to defeat Soviet Communism in the last century). Warfare without diplomacy without covert operations without economic engagement without theological discourse without cultural cross-fertilization….is doomed to fall short of the mark. Our “basic values” are arguably our chief weapons in the Long War we now fight, for it is those values of pluralism, popular rule, open trade, gender equality, and individual liberty whose absence in the Muslim world has so hobbled its ability to keep pace with the societies whose energy it so sadly ironically provides.
It may surprise you to read that I agree that a vigorous debate should take place on the limits of acceptable tactics we should employ in the fighting and holding and interrogating of our enemies. War is not for the squeamish, and our foes are most adroit at manipulating our humanity for the sake of an asymmetric advantage. However, at the same time that we must project strength and resolve to enemies who very publicly bank on our weakness, we must also recognize that a major part of how we will win this Long War is by communicating to the Muslim world that there are alternatives beyond the Strongman/Caliph duality they have been fed.
Still, we must not forget that we are up against a civilization which is based on a shame/face model of honor and which respects strength and fortitude on almost an equal footing with piety. If we take too many tools out of our belt in the gathering and utilization of intelligence, then we will signal actionable irresoluteness and weakness to those who would exploit it. This will not be lost on the great mass of Muslims who are deciding whether or not to take hold of that spear (and whether to push forward or pull back if they do!).
Again, a long-format documentary would have been an ideal format for the thoughtful and comprehensive engagement of these questions. It is a pity that — yet again — that opportunity was missed by those who believe their interpretations to be foregone conclusions and their opponents to be deluded or malicious. In a democracy, there really is no greater danger.
Pardon the dissertation, but you *did* (ostensibly) ask for a thoughtful discussion.
Mar 30, 2008 - 7:56 pm Noocyte:Oh, and -ahem- yeah. In case anyone was confused by the first paragraph of my response…I was composing a simultaneous response over at Hot Air (where Ed Morissey *actually* transferred his flag from “Captain’s Quarters”). Apparently a stray electrical discharge jumped between the hemispheres of my brain there. Yet another in a series on the pitfalls which await when Left and Right endeavor to engage in dialog.
Pity; I really liked the Dead/Phish thingy.
/Emily Litella.
Mar 30, 2008 - 10:51 pm AstroCat:I watched this through and thought it was well made, accurate and very educational. I for sure would recommend the presentation to anyone who is interested in the chronology of the war in Iraq. I see a lot of denial here, but it seems I should have expected it based on the the review at the top. Many years from now, I wonder if you will have the same outlook when the dust finally clears from these events and you have the perspective of time to clear your senses.
Apr 10, 2008 - 7:24 am TruthSeeker:One thing is clear. Delusion and denial always trump facts and truth.
Jul 18, 2008 - 1:01 pm