The Highly Informative Hissy Fit of L. Paul Bremer III

by ghandi
Tue Jan 10th, 2006 at 07:49:31 PM EST

The Highly Informative Hissy Fit of L. Paul Bremer III

Cross Posted at Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque

We need shed no tears for Paul Bremer, the former satrap of Iraq who now claims that he was set up by the Pentagon as the "fall guy" for the Bush Regime's bloodsoaked folly in Iraq. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to take up the colonial overseer's baton, and if the Bushists, in their usual manner, used him up then spit him out, that's just too damn bad. Anyone who cast their lot with this wretched enterprise deserves everything they get, in spades.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't much useful information to be gleaned from Bremer's whiny new memoir, especially the insider confirmation that neither the Bush warmongers nor their corrupt Iraq collaborators ever had the slightest idea of what to do with the country once they ripped it to shreds – other than just loot it and kill people.


As the Financial Times puts it:

"What emerges clearly from the diary is that there was no detailed postwar reconstruction plan, that the US lacked decent intelligence to deal with an insurgency it failed to predict, and the naivety of Americans who were shocked at the dismal state of Iraq’s economy and infrastructure after years of sanctions.

"Mr Bremer accuses Pentagon officials of setting him up to take the fall for the postwar failures in Iraq, even though the decision to disband the army was personally approved by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, and cleared by Mr Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush….

"A Pentagon spokesman on Monday confirmed that Mr Bremer had sent Mr Rumsfeld a memo based on a report by the Rand Corporation consultancy that recommended 500,000 US troops would be needed to pacify Iraq – far more than were sent. But Mr Bremer’s advice was rejected by military leaders and Mr Rumsfeld."

In the time-honored fashion of bootlickers everywhere, Bremer hastens to heap praise on Bush personally – saving his ire for well-placed barbs at the murderous incompetence and bureaucratic hugger-mugger of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and other masters of disaster. Yet at the same time, the hapless viceroy is desperately trying to signal that the final responsibility for the FUBAR fiasco lies with the dimbulb in the Oval Office. It's not my fault, Bremer screams through the lines on every page: I vas only following the orders of mein Fuhrer!

There is of course an egregious amount of butt-covering in all of this. Bremer presents himself as a gosh-darn good egg who just wanted to do what's right but ended up as the tragic victim of vicious circumstances. Yet the fact is that Bremer played a key role in creating those circumstances, and at every point assidiously carried out his primary duty: laying open the ruined nation to the rapacious appetities of Bush's corporate cronies. He is, to put it bluntly, a war criminal like the rest of them, although he would perhaps be ranged with the second tier of defendants in that new Nuremberg Tribunal of our dreams.

But even butt-coverers can tell the truth – inadvertantly, letting bits of it poke out from behind their comfy quilt of rationalization and justification. And Bremer's hissy fit confirms once more that the ultimate responsibility for this illegal invasion of Iraq – and all the stomach-churning horrors that have followed in its wake – does indeed lie with the tinpot tyrant in the White House: George Widowmaker Bush.

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
thanks for reminding me of a great word, rarely used, that was slipping out of my memory. The polyglot vocabulary of historical colonialism will again prove useful in dealing with the Neo-colonialists.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Jan 11th, 2006 at 04:25:35 AM EST
I gave a recommend for using "hissy fit" in the title;  no doubt a first at ET.

By the way, I watched an interview with Bremer recently. He did not come across as a whiner so much as a disappointed sycophant. He so wanted to be one of the cool kids at George's party.

Do not feel safe. The poet remembers.
Czeslaw Milosz

by Chris Kulczycki on Wed Jan 11th, 2006 at 11:12:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
.
Paul Bremer III, former Governor of Iraq: conflicts with the Pentagon on Reconstruction.

His book "My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope" a year as governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer disavows Minister of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "We had important differences of opinion."

WASHINGTON (NRC Handelsblad) 9 January 2006 --

You work 18-20 hours a day in your first months as civilian administrator in a complete chaos. Rumsfeld makes a visit and tells you: "I think you don't realize how urgent your task is".
"I was indeed bewildered - although I kept my anger in check. He didn't realize how hard we had to work. I think he was frustrated. The moment of his visit was shortly after the second suicide attack. We felt the pressure, everyone did, because we could not bring security to Iraq."

Busk asks you: can Rumsfeld delegate?
"He is tough, and he intimidates people in his surroundings such, that it's difficult to get people at the ministry to make decisions. Only Rumsfeld decides. In his case it works."

Why did the president put forward the question?
"There were stories in the press - he was such a difficult boss."

You describe how Rumsfeld doesn't take the reports of looting after the fall of Baghdad seriously. What was the impact?
"Later we made a calculation the cost of looting was $12bn. One of my biggest mistakes. I didn't urge a firm position to stop looting. I was criticized for the suggestion a shoot to kill policy for looters - I still believe that would have been the right approach. I should have made a stronger case for this policy. The true problem was, of course, we gave the impression we lacked the ability to invoke order and authority."

At the time, education came to a standstill, when 10,000 teachers who lost their jobs through deba'athification. You consider that decision wise today?
"We wanted regime change, and this meant the Ba'ath party had to be removed from power: 'deba'athification'. I still believe it to be the right choice. Often it's forgotten, with our policy we wanted to eliminate the top 1% of Ba'ath-members in high position of government. I wanted the Iraqis to decide: Americans could not distinguish between an ideological Ba'ath-supporter and a teacher who was a Ba'ath member for the sole reason to hold a teaching job.
The mistake was I delegated the implementation to the CPA. It then became part of the muddy domestic-political relationships. We discovered a much larger number then the intended top 1% was removed from office."

What was the result?
"The biggest problem were the 10,000 teachers who had lost their job. And of course the impression by the Iraqis that deba'athification meant for all Ba'ath party members. This fact led to serious ramifications in the process for reconciliation with the Sunni."

Did this provoke the uprising of insurgency?
"I don't think so. although, I don't know the answer. I believe the insurgency was to happen anyway. We found a secret document that mentioned Saddam had plans ready. But it is difficult. Our intelligence did not see the uprising coming. Equally they had no knowledge of the poor state of Iraq's economy."

Why did you not let the Iraqis administer a larger part of the government?
"I handed the Iraqis as much authority as they could handle. They were just not ready for it. They couldn't even set up an organization. They didn't have managers. They were in no position to manage - simply put - a budget."

Is it a fact the Pentagon was so angry you didn't want to transfer sovereignty, they developed a plan to hold you responsible for the post-war failure in Iraq?
"That's what Andy Card told me, chief of staff in the White House."

Nice city Washington.
"Well, you know how matters are solved here. I understood the danger."


Iraq's former US administrator, Paul Bremer, shakes hands with the country's interim president, Ghazi al-Yawar, during the handover ceremony as Bremer's deputy, David Richmond, applauds. The Guardian

When the insurgency is on the increase, you told Bush and Cheney at the end of 2003, the Pentagon has no strategy for victory. Was the White House vigilant?
"We didn't make gains on the ground in military terms. We entered a city, had a firefight, problems seemed solved, and our forces moved out. The same problems started all over. That's what I explained was going on."

Half a year later, you told Condoleezza Rice that "the worst" happened: the United States was an "incompetent occupation force".
"We were unable to secure the country. We had all the disadvantages that belong to, what is labeled, an occupier. When this becomes a fact, at least you have to provide security to the citizens."

The journalist Packer in his book The Assassins' Gate portrays you as an isolated man in the secure zone of Baghdad - a long distance from the demoralized population.
"To a certain extent, that is true. Because of safety precautions I wasn't free to walk the streets of Baghdad. It was frustrating. You are a diplomat and want to observe the country. The other side of this, I did travel throughout all of the country. I met thousands of Iraqis. But my freedom to move about was limited."

Is terrorism fostered by the war?
"It is clear they entered Iraq - in part likely, because we closed down Afghanistan. Otherwise they would still be there, I think. But ok - what else? Should we not have liberated Iraq? I don't understand the consequences of such an analysis. Should we have left Saddam in power?
The question illustrates that Europe still have difficulty understanding new terrorism. The Unites States were confronted with muslim extremists, who want to kill us by the thousands. That is totally different terror we experienced in the seventies and eighties. The conclusion is the U.S. cannot sit and wait. We have to preempt before we are attacked.
But Europe didn't move, and the U.S. refuse to be passive. I wouldn't call Europe an museum, like Thomas Friedman, that sounds too similar to `Old Europe' of Rumsfeld. But Europe has problems, no doubt about that. When you are threatened and you don't see this, then you are floating without any goal in sight."

NRC Handelsblad - January 9, 2006. Translation Oui.

My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope
Paul Bremer III

Cross-posted from Jérôme's diary @ Booman Tribune --
Bremer says he was 'fall guy', confirms lack of plan in Iraq

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY

by Oui on Wed Jan 11th, 2006 at 04:43:01 AM EST
It's a shame no one seems to have asked him if he personally enriched himself (or should we ask, "how much").
</snark>

Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine - Patti Smith
by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Wed Jan 11th, 2006 at 09:21:56 AM EST
Wasn't it on Bremer's watch that eight billion dollars just vanished in thin air?

With no one having any clue whatsoever as to what happen to that money?
(with Dr Evil's voice (from Austin Powers): eight - billion - dollars ...)

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.

by Bernard on Thu Jan 12th, 2006 at 04:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shortly before he left Iraq he provoked Moqtada Sadr by shutting down Sadr's newspaper for not properly toeing the Provisional Authority's line.
I'm still puzzled that he didn't realise that the Shi'a were our allies, too bad they wouldn't praise the CPA properly.

Think this through with me, let me know your mind.
Hunter/Garcia
by epcraig (epcraigatgmaildotcom) on Thu Jan 12th, 2006 at 03:31:00 AM EST
Sadr was never a US ally, but at least he kept a low profile until Bremer decided to 'deal' with him. And the latter onkly started with the newspaper closure - then came the tanks rolling over unarmed Sadrist protesters (which, if reported at all, was framed as fanatics jumping before tanks - now contrast that with the coverage of the Tiennamen Square massacre...), then arrests of local Sadrist leaders, finally with aggressive military moves near Sadr's house. That was a rather clear language.

And the same process repeated before the second Sadrist uprising in August 2004, BTW.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Jan 12th, 2006 at 04:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have commented before how incompetent the US' handling of Sadr was (and how it played a role in the Spanish troop pull-out).

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 12th, 2006 at 05:54:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]