A week or so ago, the English Prime Minister, Tony Blair, came to Washington to discuss how things were going in the war against Iraq. Blair and Bush appeared after their conference to hold a meeting with the press. None of the major American networks carried the program. It didn’t even appear on the Public Broadcasting Systems. It appeared only on MSNBC and perhaps on CNN. That will tell you what the networks think of the importance of the news to be made.
At the news conference, Blair and Bush both appeared to have had a very trying day. Their mood was not upbeat. Quite to the contrary, it was somber and, in both cases, there were apologies or semi-apologies for opportunities missed.
For example, Bush acknowledged that when he said “Bring it on” and “We want Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive” that he should have used “more sophisticated language.” The fact that Bush expressed himself in the language of a cowboy was not lost on the world, yet Bush contended that he should have used more sophisticated language because the rest of the world did not understand what he meant. So you see it is our fault for the mistake we made in not understanding Bush. From my point of view, there was no mistake in the phrases of “bring it on” or “we want Osama, dead or alive.” These comments were extremely provocative and now that the insurgents have “brought it on,” Bush is distraught.
If Bush thinks that he was misunderstood solely because he used unsophisticated expressions, here is my suggestion for a more cerebral comment:

In more sophisticated terms, I should have told you terrorists that we are prepared to engage in stepping on toes, insults, fisticuffs, mud wrestling, torture or controlled and compassionate manslaughter. So kindly advise us whichever you wish to be engaged in. However, if you bring us a televised broadcast statement from Ann Coulter, it will cause us to wilt and plead for mercy.
On Osama bin Laden, I should have said we would like to have him presented to us either pre or post mortem.
Using the terms of “bring it on” or “We want Osama dead or alive” were horrid expressions and we apologize for their lack of sophistication.

Blair was equally regretful for some of the actions that the English had taken. But in the end it must be considered that the limeys have absolutely learned nothing. The British troops are in charge of the southern part of Iraq, based largely around the town of Basra. For the duration of the war, the English had contended that Basra was a model of good behavior, which I assume was a tribute to their troops. In the last few days, we have learned that the new Premier of Iraq has gone to Basra and has lectured people because it is a lawless city that has fallen prey to tribal and sectarian influences.
What the English have always misunderstood is that when they occupy a country, hatred is the inevitable result. For 800 years, England occupied Ireland. The result was warfare at every turn until the English were thrown out in 1922. In all of Ireland, there is not a statue honoring the English occupation. In most cases, the English are reviled and those thoughts of revulsion are passed on from one generation to the next. What England is doing in Iraq, as we are doing also, is generating hatred for years and perhaps hundreds of years to come.
Yet Tony Blair indicated no understanding of this fact. If, for example, an Arab army were to occupy the United States, I probably would be the first one to oppose them with the thought of killing them at every opportunity. In that case, I would become a full-fledged insurrectionist. That is what occupation does to the natives. In West Africa, in Ghana and Nigeria for example, the English excused their occupation on the ground that they were bringing Christianity to the natives who did not know Jesus. Again, I am quite certain that there are no monuments to the Brits in either Nigeria or Ghana now that the Brits have departed. In those two countries, the English required every black native to refer to any white man as “Master.” It made no difference if a British soldier had worked in the garbage disposal vat of a British slaughter house, he was to be addressed as “Master” when he arrived in West Africa. Does anyone now consider building a statue to the former masters? Of course not.
The press conference between Bush and Blair had all the hangdog looks that go with people who had been wrestling with a problem that could not be solved, mainly the occupation of Iraq. Yet, a few days later on Memorial Day, Bush attended a ceremony at Arlington Cemetery to honor our dead. Now remember this is the president who has never attended the funeral for a soldier killed in Iraq. As of this morning, 2,492 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and almost 19,000 have been wounded. Yet Mr. Bush declines to attend a funeral, even those held in Arlington Cemetery where he was speaking.
At the Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day, Bush had recovered from his performance at the press conference with Blair and now spoke a little bit more confidently. He repeated his mantra that the only way you can pay tribute to all of these dead soldiers is by staying the course. This means that staying the course may well produce another 2,500 dead soldiers and 15,000 more wounded and that, somehow, according to Bush, is a means of paying tribute to the women and men who are to be interred in Arlington Cemetery. That is the most backward thinking that any chief executive could be capable of. The point is, we should get out of Iraq and do it now before we incur further losses.
Bush and Blair unfortunately are clueless about how to end this war. Somehow they seem to think that incurring more casualties pays tribute to fallen soldiers. I am here to tell you that is not the way to pay tribute to anyone, alive or dead. What we need here is someone with a brain and I am sorry to tell you that between Blair and Bush, they do not have a brain between them when it comes to this war that they started.
This of course is a downbeat assessment of where things stand in Iraq, but that is the state of the record. As long as the United States is stuck with the clueless George Bush, the killing will go on, the execution of civilians as happened with the Marine Corps recently, and the abuses at our prisons will continue to take place. May I ask, is this the image we want to extend to the Arab world as well as to the rest of civilization? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that when Bush told the insurgents in Iraq to bring it on, they brought it on and now George W. is whimpering.
E. E. CARR
June 6, 2006
~~~
The United States could have saved plenty of lives and money if someone had bothered to write a picturebook that explained the concept of a “sunk cost.” Doubling down on a terrible idea very rarely makes it a less terrible idea.
Fun fact: this is the only essay known to me that has an identical title to another essay. A month ago I published its counterpart.