A Touch of Humility

As expected, the Arab reaction to the Abu Ghraib prison photos is chock full of hypocrisy charges. Despite over a year of hard work by thousands of Americans to win the hearts and minds, this one revelation has swept any sense of the moral high ground right off from under us:

The editor in chief of the London-based Arabic daily al-Quds al-Arabi denied statements that this incident was the work of rogue soldiers.

"This is the outcome of the culture of hate that the US administration adopts against the Arabs and Muslims," Abd al-Bari Atwan told Aljazeera.net.

"They (the Americans) removed Saddam Hussein for acts of abuse, but who will remove Bush and Rumsfeld for inciting these acts?"

Clearly we must try to reclaim the moral high ground (and I'm realistic about how little we had in the minds of truly anti-American Arabs, but there were others who were win-overable), but we have a huge roadblock between us and that end: the perception of US arrogance.

Part of the problem, said Hurst Hannum, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School at Tufts University outside Boston, is that Bush has "put this war on such a high moral plane that any moral deviance will be taken more seriously by critics, and will be interpreted as either being arrogance or hypocrisy."

By never admitting a mistake, Bush has set himself up to be blasted when something like this comes along. His constant assertion of moral superiority left him with absolutely no shelter from the charges of hypocrisy. The man who is so sure of the actions he's taken every step of the way that he couldn't think of one mistake he's made when asked at the press conference cannot now expect Arabs to go easy in their criticism of the atrocities that happen under his leadership. A touch of humility buys you more charitable reviews.

Comments

[Bryguy]

The answer is that we need to demolish Abu Grayb. Simple as that- perhaps erect a monument to the victims of torture there.

[Paul Cella]

One of the perpetrators of this crime is claiming that it occurred because he had no guidance from his superiors as to how prisoners were to be treated. So he, too, it seems, was a victim, because the brass didn't tell him it's not alright to abuse prisoners.

[Slartibartfast]

Infallibility is an unreasonable expectation, Edward.

[Edward]

Infallibility is an unreasonable expectation, Edward.

I agree wholeheartedly...which is why it behooves every human being to avoid arrogance as much as possible.

[Slartibartfast]

Ah, but some of us fail at that, too. And I think that pretending to accept blame when you feel there's none to be taken isn't all that endearing, either.

If Bush were an apolitical creature (and I doubt such a critter exists in the sphere of public office) then he'd claim responsibility. Not in terms of BLAME, but in terms of he's responsible for it. Which he is. But I think (and I say this once again) if he ever did that, the newspapers would trumpet something like Bush Takes Blame for 9/11.

[Slartibartfast]

BTW, Edward, there's nothing in the adherence to morality that rules out mistakes. Sorry, even a completely moral human being (whatever the hell that means) is still prone to error. I hate to come back to this, but it's one of your points that I think isn't very convincing.

[Stentor]

I don't see where Edward is demanding infallibility from anyone. He's just pointing out that if you _claim_ infallibility*, then people -- particularly people hostile to you -- will see your mistakes as being a mistake plus hypocrisy. And I don't think you can excuse it by saying "oops, Bush accidentally claimed infallibility."

*As has been done by pretty much every politician in history.

[John Thullen]

Stentor beat me to it.

Edward in no way expects infallibility. His post is obvious. And yet Slartibartfast infallibly has an answer defending Bush's infallibility, or lack thereof, whichever happens to be the case today. Except when Slartibartfast believes Bush wavers from his infallible positions, in which case Slartibartfast, who is just an example of the type, jumps in with greater infallibility.

[Gary Farber]

"If there is to be blame," Mr. Reagan said before the assembled corps, "it properly rests here in this office and with this president. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good." As some of us recall.

"The Buck Stops Here."

"I bear sole responsibility," he repeatedly said publicly of the Bay of Pigs. Who said that?

When did "I can't take responsibility became newspapers would trumpet it" become an ethic?

[Gary Farber]

"because," not "became," sorry. But since I'm adding. "I am the responsible officer of the government." Words of the same fellow in the same office.

[Edward]

The infallability question seems a bit of a red herring.

I have a list as long as my arm of mistakes I believe Bush has made (his lack of humility being only one of them), so I'm not faulting him for making mistakes here. I'm saying his inability to present himself as anything other than infallible sets him (and therefore the US) up for a harsher critique than would come were he to not be so black and white about everything.

It's what's wrong with absolutist hawkish rhetoric in general. The idea that you can vanquish your foes with an iron fist and then expect them to see your warm and fuzzy side after they're defeated has always struck me as idiocy. A more sensible approach is focus on a consensus and not only say, but mean, that you're entering into conflict reluctantly. True or not, Bush gives the impression that it's God's will that he shoot first and let God sort out the dead...anything that absolute is bound to generate deep seated resentment.

[BP]

But I think (and I say this once again) if he ever did that, the newspapers would trumpet something like Bush Takes Blame for 9/11.

No shit. People should only take responsibility for there actions when the consequences are painless.

[Gary Farber]

"It's what's wrong with absolutist hawkish rhetoric in general."

Minor note is that what you're saying is tautological. Absolutist rhetoric is absolutlist, therefore bad.

No one could disagree.

Of course, one could engage in pacificist absolutist rhetoric in the same way. It's hardly inherent in being "hawkish" as you seem to imply.

Just noting.

"The idea that you can vanquish your foes with fuzziness and then expect them to see your warm and fuzzy side after they're not been defeated has always struck me as idiocy. [No "vanqishing" having taken place.] A more sensible approach is [to] focus on a consensus and not only say, but mean, that you're entering into conflict reluctantly."

That doesn't work so well, either. Greeting Hitler (Hi, Godwin!)with warmth wouldn't have worked so well, you know? It would have been peaceful, to be sure. I trust we can all agree that "peace" is not the highest value?

[BPCross]

"...but we have a huge roadblock between us and that end: the perception of US arrogance."

The perception and/or the reality of it.

[Edward]

Ah, Gary, what would we do with you? Let me try again.

There's a style of hawkish rhetoric that Bush uses---"you're with us or you're with the terrorists"---that simplifies the world into good people and bad people, black and white situations, right or wrong beliefs. It leaves no room for people to see a situation as complicated or nuanced (and it leaves people supporting a particular intervention at their own risk...if I support one part, I'm by association supporting the whole approach, and if I reject one part, I'm essentially "with the terrorists"). It's idiotic.

Worse, however, is when people who orignally supported the effort find the need to criticize some part of it or distance themselves from part of it (as conservative pundits increasingly are); because now they are open to a much harsher critique: "Are you now saying you were totally wrong? Remember there was no gray; there was only black and white. Are you now siding 'with the terrorists'"?

I repeat: it's idiotic.

[bob mcmanus]

"he, too, it seems, was a victim, because the brass didn't tell him it's not alright to abuse prisoners."

Exactly. Social restraints are important, we are not saints, and need the help and support of those around us to moderate our impulses and remind us of our limitations.

He is no victim. I am sure he was told of the Geneva Convention. He is responsible. But he probably did believe his actions were acceptable to his superiors, or that he could get away with them.

I strongly suspect a culture of occupation exists in Iraq, involving cultural arrogance, contempt, and an acceptance of behavior beyond the pale.

Oh, the soldier with cardboard placard and two Iraqi kids. Who, exactly took the picture? Who was the intended audience?

[Edward]

As is so often the case, someone said it all much better by saying it more simply: I offer this statement by a US Iraq war vet:

An Iraq war veteran expressed disappointment with President Bush on Saturday, saying the country's leaders refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of continuing violence in Iraq. “I don’t expect our leaders to be free of mistakes. I expect our leaders to own up to them,” said Army National Guard 1st Lt. Paul Rieckhoff, who was a platoon leader in Iraq.

Note that this statement has been politicized by Kerry's camp, but that doesn't make the point any less valid.

[Gary Farber]

"Ah, Gary, what would we do with you?""

I could make pleasant suggestions.

One would be that you take the care to ask "what would we do without you?"

I could, of course, be wrong in imagining that I grasp what you intend to say, as opposed to what you write. Appropriate apologies if I'm mindreading incorrectly.

[Edward]

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes....I meant "what would we do without you?"

but I am now calling for a moratorium on the flurry of grammatical or spelling corrections here lately (my being the target of most of it, it's beginning to make me feel stoopid)...

[roxanne]

I apologize in advance if this sounds harsh, but the first thing we need to do (besides argue about it) is to put the 'bad seeds' on trial and make sure punishment is swift, just and publicized throughout the world. These acts of torture were shocking and I think their punishment might be shocking. And that might be as it should be.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The activity of these soldiers is unacceptable and will be punished.

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions about Arab perceptions of arrogance based on this.

For example: "The man who is so sure of the actions he's taken every step of the way that he couldn't think of one mistake he's made when asked at the press conference cannot now expect Arabs to go easy in their criticism of the atrocities that happen under his leadership. A touch of humility buys you more charitable reviews."

Is engaging in way too much projection about both Bush and the Arab world. If you think that a touch of humility would have bought a more charitable review in this instance, you are frankly wrong. Which is precisely why we can't allow things like this to happen--because they are both wrong and highly likely to make our job much more difficult.

[Gary Farber]

"but I am now calling for a moratorium on the flurry of grammatical or spelling corrections here lately (my being the target of most of it, it's beginning to make me feel stoopid)..."

Coming back, I see that that was meant to be amusing, but came out harsh and not so. My apologies. Really. Sorry about that. My bad.

[Edward]

Gary...that was, most definitely meant to be amusing...

Sebastian, I think you said exactly what I said, only after having disagreed with what I said.

[Jesurgislac]

I apologize in advance if this sounds harsh, but the first thing we need to do (besides argue about it) is to put the 'bad seeds' on trial and make sure punishment is swift, just and publicized throughout the world.

I agree, Roxanne. (Also with the poster above who suggested that demolishing the prison, flattening it, would send the right message.) Soldiers who took part in torture directly must be court martialled: the military must (and I hope will) take this at least far more seriously than they took My Lai, where the military objective appeared to be pretty definitely to allow as many as possible to escape punishment for their crime.

But... "bad seeds"?

As at My Lai, the problem is not merely with those on the spot who committed the crime. The investigation needs to look into not merely those who are guilty of committing torture, but those who ordered it to be done.

"Civilian contractors", who are apparently not to be punished because they are not subject to military discipline, don't just wander in to a military detention center and tell soldiers to commit torture just because they have time on their hands and it sounds like a fun thing to do.

Who gave orders that the prisoners were to be "softened up"? Who was in charge of interrogations? Who hired the "civilian contractors" who took part in the torture and gave orders? Amnesty International has called for a full independent investigation throughout Iraq: but I am also asking - what happened at Bagram Airbase last January, when two men were kicked to death? What is still happening there? In how many American "detention centers" is torture being carried out, only to be revealed when the disorder of Iraq let a young soldier with a conscience be ordered into taking part?

[crionna]

bad seeds, rogues, idiots?

No, they're human. Those guards could be any of us. In fact, they could be Stanford students.

Are they victims? Maybe. Paul, I think we all would like to think that we'd never do that type of thing. However, the Stanford study showed that ANYONE* might do this without the proper supervision no orders are neccessary. This was common knowledge and they should have been more closely supervised.

*Including me. As a band once said
I'm not a coward, I've just never been tested,
I'd like to think that if I was I would pass.
But I don't know. None of us not in that situation can.

[Meaux]

So my question is this: given the arrogant and unilateralist reputation we've earned so far, wouldn't a clever move for driving the wedge deeper be to bring up the US soldiers involved on war crimes charges at the Hague? Then we would again be in a position of defying international bodies, and this time it would be about keeping our own "bad guys" out of court.

More I think about this, the more it seems the obvious thing to do - opinions as to when/if?

And what should we do in that circumstance?

[Bird Dog]

Your last paragraph was a cheap shot, Edward.

[Edward]

Care to elaborate Bird Dog?

My last paragraph was the whole point of the post.

[Jesurgislac]

Meaux, generally speaking the Hague is used to try cases where there is no obvious jurisdiction. (Not a lawyer: I'm sure Von will correct me if I'm wrong.)

For the soldiers who committed the crimes directly, and are being court-martialled, the Hague isn't a realistic possibility.

If the military continue to claim this as an isolated incident, it seems more than possible that the military officers responsible for the torture might be charged with war crimes at the Hague: Amnesty International is absolutely right to call for an independent investigation.

[asdf]

Eddie Spaghetti, you know I anti-love G-Dubya as much as you do.

But.

I think that moral arrogance is a deeply ingrained trait in American foreign policy.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Care to elaborate Bird Dog?

My last paragraph was the whole point of the post."

Well then the point of your post was to take a cheap shot, and that is why my previous comment wasn't agreeing with you, though you seem to think that it was.

Focus on this sentence: "The man who is so sure of the actions he's taken every step of the way that he couldn't think of one mistake he's made when asked at the press conference cannot now expect Arabs to go easy in their criticism of the atrocities that happen under his leadership."

If you think this sentence represents a useful and accurate portrayl, there is a problem. I am beginning to understand why you avoid quoting. It can get in the way of broad generalizations and mindless stereotyping.

I also note for people with short memories the irony that this 'high moral plane' crap is an interesting reversal from the crowd that six months ago was arguing that the entire argument put forth by Bush was centered on WMD. The actions in the jail are bad because they are awful to do and not helpful for our cause. They aren't bad because we set themselves up on a 'high moral plane'. Psychobabble.

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: I also note for people with short memories the irony that this 'high moral plane' crap is an interesting reversal from the crowd that six months ago was arguing that the entire argument put forth by Bush was centered on WMD.

It's ironic that you should be noting for "people with short memories", Sebastian, since evidently you don't recall that ninety percent of the argument put forward by Bush for invading Iraq was centred on WMD, and that the "in thing" for pro-war Republicans was to claim that these WMD would be found. That was only a year ago. And yet, as Edward pointed out, Bush is "so sure of the actions he's taken every step of the way that he couldn't think of one mistake he's made when asked at the press conference".

[BP]

"They aren't bad because we set themselves (sic) up on a 'high moral plane'."

No, they aren't *bad* because we set ourselves on a high moral plane.

But putting ourselves up on a high moral plane makes it more difficult to get cut a little slack when we do go wrong.

"I also note for people with short memories the irony that this 'high moral plane' crap is an interesting reversal from the crowd that six months ago was arguing that the entire argument put forth by Bush was centered on WMD."

It's an interesting 'reversal' only in your mind, if you think that taking the moral high ground and harping on about WMDs are mutully incompatible. I seem to recall any number of pro-war cheerleaders favorably comparing themselves to Churchill, and the anti-war crowd to Chamberlain before the war. Well, Winston, what the fuck did you expect when the war went sour? Nuance and empathy from the people you compared to Vichy France? Get off your sense of entitlement. You asked for the war, you got it, and if you don't like the consequences, tough luck.

[Slartibartfast]

Stentor:

He's just pointing out that if you _claim_ infallibility...

Ok, I'll accept that. If you show me where he's claimed infallibility.

Thullen:

And yet Slartibartfast infallibly has an answer defending Bush's infallibility, or lack thereof, whichever happens to be the case today. Except when Slartibartfast believes Bush wavers from his infallible positions, in which case Slartibartfast, who is just an example of the type, jumps in with greater infallibility.

Translation to English, please? A little logic would be nice, too. I've never claimed infallibility, and as far as I can tell, neither has Bush. Straw everywhere.

Gary:

I never said it had. Interestingly enough, in your example, Kennedy actually was not only responsible but directly to blame. Huh.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti, you're the one who first suggested that Edward was expecting infallibility from Bush. Edward merely pointed out (accurately) that Bush has never admitted a mistake, and has constantly asserted moral superiority. You set up the straw doll of infallibility here.

[Edward]

I think that moral arrogance is a deeply ingrained trait in American foreign policy.

asdf,

first and most important, no one has called me Eddie Spaghetti since grade school...thanks for the trip back down memory lane.

Secondly, it may be my unfair(?) predisposition to expect the worst of Bush, but he does strike me as far more arrogant than any previous President I can remember. Certainly much more so than his father.

[Phil]

But putting ourselves up on a high moral plane makes it more difficult to get cut a little slack when we do go wrong.

Hahahaha. I officially move that all U.S. politicians belonging to the two major political parties be required to wear this, emblazoned like the scarlet letter, on every article of clothing they own. And that it be superimposed across their faces during every television appearance.

[Slartibartfast]

You're right, Jesurgislac. All arguments relating to infallibility summarily retracted.

My apologies, Edward. I'm wrong. I think it's rare that I've been so obviously (to me, at least) wrong, and so I'm making a bit of a ceremony of 'fessing up.

[Edward]

No apology needed Slartibartfast. It's a bit of a sidebar argument, but certainly not off topic.

Besides, I'm far more guilty of wrongdoing in the Fallujah post.

I guess the pressure of it all gets to the best of us sometimes. As Jesurgislac so wisely pointed out, it's best to think in terms of whom you'd enjoy going drinking with and working hard to be respectful (and honest) in your ranting. Simplifying things to where you start spouting bigotry rightfully tells the other side they can stop listening to you now.

[John Thullen]

"straw"

Yup, custom-written straw just for you.

Slartibartfast: You have retracted; I hereby retract my straw, too, and will burn it. I've got plenty more where that came from. ;)

[Bird Dog]

Sebastian answered for me quite well, Edward. You're not providing analysis, you're foisting cartoonish caricaturizations and distortions on us.

One example. Bush did admit to mistakes in the last press conference, but he wouldn't give the press the pleasure of providing specific examples. The 'infallibility' claim of yours is pure nonsense. The press had an agenda going into the conference, in the wake of Slippery Dick's 9/11 commission testimony, of trying to extract apologies and confessions for mistakes made.

[Edward]

Where does the buck stop, Bird Dog? It seems to stop somewhere just past the election with Bush.

I understand that it's perceived political suicide to admit to a mistake, but I don't buy it. At this point he's beginning to look out of touch and that's got to be worse than saying "We've definitely made some mistakes. I would rather not list them because I need my team to remain focussed on winning the peace and not apologizing for past errors, but don't confuse our determination with arrogance. And understand that we are committed to learning from our mistakes and moving forward."

Anything like that at all would do wonders. Yes, I know the CW is that the press would not let it drop. That they'd hound him for specifics. But, as with the Prez and VP joint discussion with the 9/11 commission, he's shown he's clearly able to avoid answering a question he doesn't want to.

What good he'd do by admitting "some mistakes" is to take the heat off somewhat. In fact he could use that admission repeatedly as cover going forward and quietly, diplomatically with our highly annoyed allies. It needn't hurt him politically (not that I respect that argument, mind you, just that I understand it).

[asdf]

Slippery Dick's 9/11 commission testimony

I thought it was just a conversation in the Oval Office, not testimony? No transcript, not under oath, etc.

[Slartibartfast]

Yup, custom-written straw just for you.

What the hell, I earned it.

[Bird Dog]

Slippery Dick Clarke, asdf, not Cheney.

Edward, you're doing a fine job of goalpost moving. You wrote, "By never admitting a mistake..." in your cheap shot post-ending paragraph, which was a false statement. Now you're unhappy that Bush didn't admit specific mistakes.

This mistake admitting business is a Catch 22, Edward. If Bush lists out a mistake or two, then it's gotcha time for the press and the Left. If he doesn't, then he's mule-headed and arrogant. You're making an unfair accusation because all it does is give you the opportunity to criticize him whichever way he goes.

[Jesurgislac]

You're making an unfair accusation because all it does is give you the opportunity to criticize him whichever way he goes.

What makes you think it's unfair to criticise Bush, Bird Dog?

[Slartibartfast]

Looked to me like the accusation was unfair. Well, I've been wrong before.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Jesurgislac, can we presume you are just being ironically difficult?

Clearly it isn't unfair to criticize Bush (as a person or president). What is unfair is criticizing him in a way such as to define any action he could make as a problem.

It is usually labelled: "Trying to have it both ways" or "Getting him coming and going". It is the typical response of the hyper-partisan. See also the unilateral withdrawal of Israel from Gaza which was going to be the 'death of the peace process' last week but now that the withdrawal has been voted against by Likud the vote is a 'sign that the roadmap to peace is nearly dead'.

And no that isn't a straw man, I just don't have time right now to find the links again.

[Jesurgislac]

What is unfair is criticizing him in a way such as to define any action he could make as a problem.

And exactly how did Edward do this?

Bird Dog asserted it's "not fair" because if Bush had admitted to mistakes, he would have been criticized for those mistakes.

What Bird Dog is ignoring is that Bush is being criticized for those mistakes anyway, so that excuse won't fly.

How is it unfair to criticize Bush for not copping to the mistakes we can all see he's made?

[Edward]

hmmmm...somehow I've progressed to "hyper-partisan" in all this. I really think that charge might best be reserved for more egregious cases than claiming the President never admits a mistake.

By the way, I'll gladly post a correction if someone will point me to where he's done so in so many words. A reporter offered him a chance and he turned it down. I'm suggesting that was a mistake.

Edward, you're doing a fine job of goalpost moving. You wrote, "By never admitting a mistake..." in your cheap shot post-ending paragraph, which was a false statement. Now you're unhappy that Bush didn't admit specific mistakes.

Not true at all. I suggested a very clear statement that would help Bush avoid the political pitfalls of admitting specific mistakes while still creating an air of humility that would help shelter him from the harsher critique he's earning because of a perception that he never admits a mistake (i.e., that he's arrogant). Believe it or not, Bird Dog, I'm offering advice I believe would be good not only for the nation, but also for the President...but that's how we hyper-partisan folk think.

The arrogance perception is a big problem IMHO. I believe it is costing the US goodwill. He should do something about it.

[rilkefan]

A good essay by Jacob Levy is apropos. E.g.:

Why is the administration's non-apologetic line so disastrous? In part because taking responsibility would strengthen its hand considerably. The White House has lost credibility in Iraq as well as with the American public about its seriousness in the project of stabilizing the occupied country. That loss of credibility is now spiraling. Iraqis don't want to work with, be seen to support, or stake their futures on the success of the American project. And their unwillingness to commit makes our project more difficult every day. The U.S. needs to reverse that spiral. And it can't do so with mere words, because no one believes our words anymore. An announcement of a big increase in troop deployment accompanied by Rumsfeld's resignation letter might start the process of convincing Iraqis that the U.S. really doesn't mean to cut and run. Of course, that would violate the administration's no-accountability policy for its officials.

[asdf]

I know, BD.

I know.

[rilkefan]

Hey, doesn't "E" precede "r" at 7:31?

[Edward]

yes...still can't figure out the ordering...and that bold! eck!

Let me go in and fix it...Nurse! Gloves! Scalpel!

[rilkefan]

Did this blog just switch to Pacific time? No, now I'm seeing maybe-GMT. So confusd...

[Bird Dog]

What makes you think it's unfair to criticise Bush, Bird Dog?

You're distorting, Jes. There are fair criticisms and there are unfair criticisms.

[Gary Farber]

"What makes you think it's unfair to criticise Bush, Bird Dog?"

"You're distorting, Jes. There are fair criticisms and there are unfair criticisms."

He's not distorting you. He's responding to your precise words:

"This mistake admitting business is a Catch 22, Edward. If Bush lists out a mistake or two, then it's gotcha time for the press and the Left. You're making an unfair accusation because all it does is give you the opportunity to criticize him whichever way he goes."

You were asserting that for President Bush to admit a mistake, any mistake, (or not) is a "Catch 22." You leave no opening for the possibility of "fair" criticism on the subject of admitting a mistake. You specifically deny the possibility. You're explicitly declaring that there is no such thing as "fair criticism" of President Bush on this ground. To then complain that someone isn't make such a "fair criticism" is contradictory.

You can have one, or the other, but you can't have both. They're not on the Logical Menu.