"Bush's War"
Apr. 20th, 2008 04:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tagrynThe PBS program Frontline did an outstanding 2-part piece titled "Bush's War" which is now available for viewing online. Fair warning: each part is 1 hour long, but it is a pretty good and balanced overview of the history of the war up to a certain point (see below).
I don't think anyone really get out of this one without looking bad. CIA, State Department, DoD, the Administration all messed up in turn. Rumsfeld especially comes off as so focused on getting out of Iraq ASAP that it blinds him to the reality of the situation, and Bremer's edicts on de-Ba'athification and disbanding the Iraqi army are roundly criticized. The CIA totally blows the WMD investigation. The State Department and Defense become involved in a protracted turf war which detracts from the overall mission, and it seems that Bush either failed to realize what was going on - don't underestimate the ability to keep even the POTUS in the dark from bad news - or just chose not to intervene. Note that the real errors are systemic, rather than being linked to one particular party, which as David Kay says in the program, isn't something anyone really wants to hear (its much more difficult to fix than just expecting the next election cycle to bring a house cleaning).
As usual with programs that rely on personal interviews, you have to keep in mind that everyone has their own viewpoint and wants to come off looking good, even if it means throwing someone else (preferably a former opponent) under the bus, so you take each one in turn and try to discern the truth that lies between them all.
My only major quibble is with the ending, which implies that Iraq is a lost cause and that Sadr's militia is destined to rule the country. The show ends with only an in-passing mention of the surge, and Petraeus never gets mentioned at all. So, as I said, a good overview of the history to that point, but the book isn't as open and closed on the final outcome of Iraq as they present it to be.
I don't think anyone really get out of this one without looking bad. CIA, State Department, DoD, the Administration all messed up in turn. Rumsfeld especially comes off as so focused on getting out of Iraq ASAP that it blinds him to the reality of the situation, and Bremer's edicts on de-Ba'athification and disbanding the Iraqi army are roundly criticized. The CIA totally blows the WMD investigation. The State Department and Defense become involved in a protracted turf war which detracts from the overall mission, and it seems that Bush either failed to realize what was going on - don't underestimate the ability to keep even the POTUS in the dark from bad news - or just chose not to intervene. Note that the real errors are systemic, rather than being linked to one particular party, which as David Kay says in the program, isn't something anyone really wants to hear (its much more difficult to fix than just expecting the next election cycle to bring a house cleaning).
As usual with programs that rely on personal interviews, you have to keep in mind that everyone has their own viewpoint and wants to come off looking good, even if it means throwing someone else (preferably a former opponent) under the bus, so you take each one in turn and try to discern the truth that lies between them all.
My only major quibble is with the ending, which implies that Iraq is a lost cause and that Sadr's militia is destined to rule the country. The show ends with only an in-passing mention of the surge, and Petraeus never gets mentioned at all. So, as I said, a good overview of the history to that point, but the book isn't as open and closed on the final outcome of Iraq as they present it to be.
