Why is it that governments have so much trouble admitting that they’ve made mistakes? Let’s take the U.S. government, for example. Right now we have troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. We don’t seem to be achieving our goals or be welcome in either place. Why can’t we apologize sincerely and go home?
In Afghanistan the U.S. spent a huge amount of effort trying to thwart Soviet control in the late 1970s. Jimmy Carter sent all kinds of money and weapons to the Islamic rebels so that they could kill Russian kids in uniform. In retrospect this seems like a bad mistake. If the Afghanistan had been a Russian possession there would never have been a Taliban and perhaps never an Osama bin-Laden or September 11th. Could we offer a sincere apology today to the Russians and offer Afghanistan back to them?
Saddam Hussein seems to be alive and well. The Iraqi people don’t like us, if newspaper articles and armed resistance are to be believed. Why not say to Saddam “We were wrong about your weapons programs and we’re sorry for invading and here’s your country back?” Our troops could get on planes in Baghdad and wave goodbye to a restored Saddam. (We might want to split off an area in the north and give it to the Kurds since we made them some promises back in the early 1990s and it would be good to keep them.)
[We could warm up by apologizing to the Vietnamese: “We’re sorry that we got involved in your civil war. We know that we can’t truly make it up to you but if you’re in the U.S. we’ll treat you to a three-day pass at Disneyworld and a day at Universal Islands of Adventure.”]
Governments do this with wrongly convicted criminals. We say “Sorry for your 15 years in jail. We didn’t have DNA testing back then. Enjoy the rest of your life.” Why not do this in foreign policy instead of trying to come up with contorted ex-post-facto justifications?
This is only a specific case of a more general phenomenon. Not only don’t governments apologize, politicians don’t admit mistakes of any kind. Instead of saying “I was wrong before, my views have changed” they twist themselves into knots to justify simultaneously their previous statements and actions and their contradictory current ones, or rewrite history.
Another thing politicians never ever do is say something like “I know this position is unpopular, but the public is wrong on this one and I will do my best to explain to the majority why they should change their minds.” They always say they are doing what the people want, even when they’re not.
George Bush has sworn off the dipso-facto justifications.
Another thing politicians never ever do is say something like “I know this position is unpopular, but the public is wrong on this one and I will do my best to explain to the majority why they should change their minds.” They always say they are doing what the people want, even when they’re not.
Clinton and Gore pushing NAFTA through was an example of politicians doing exactly that. The Democrats still have the unions somehow… probably because the Republicans would screw them even worse.
Let’s go there, Philip! 🙂 The biggest reason is, if you apologize, there’s an assumption that whatever behavior led to the wrong-doing should be corrected. (Or as Bush might say, “evil-doing”) The ultimate foolishness that lead up to Iraq was the foolishness of the Americans who voted for Bush. And the media who promoted his campaign and called Gore a liar. Following if further, for the sake of discussion…
If we apologize for Iraq today, shouldn’t we apologize for Vietnam? For slavery? For destroying Native America’s culture? For the crusades?
It seems to be a popular theme among my generation (twenty-somethings) to admit the “mistakes” of the past and to try to do better in the future. But one doesn’t want to apologize unless the other side reciprocates the apology. Something of a Pearl-Harbor-vs-Nuclear-Bombs scenario: both wrong? both right?
I would be willing to apology to the Iranians, on behalf of my parents, for electing leadership that installed the Shaw. (Did I spell that correctly?) Or to apologize to the Palestinians about this whole Israel thing. But conversely, the Iranians should apologize for taking those hostages that lead to Reagan’s popularity. And the arabs really should fess up to the 1967 war. C’mon.
So, assuming everyone apologizes to everyone else, how can America on one hand apologize for Bush’s actions and still have ~45% of its public voting for him? Or for that matter, for Kerry who has yet to apologize for supporting the war in the first place?
Let’s start by apologizing to the Iranians for not propping the Shah up when he needed our help & instead leaving the Iranian people to the nutocracy that remains. Surely we can make up for it by bringing Joe Palevi Jr. or whatever his name is back as the New and Improved Shah.
Let’s give the government back to Britain and apologize about that whole continental congress business then, too. By now the uncollapsed British Empire, fueled by American resources, who have surely made everything right with the world. Everyone descended from immigrants could leave the continent and go back where their ancestors came from, too (sorry about you folks with Irish/Japanese parents). Yes, all of the problems of history are easily solved by just saying “oops, never mind.” Reinstalling Saddam? GREAT idea!
Dog killed in small plane crash:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20040527X00678&key=1
Phil,
Right on! The world is full of Hatfield and McCoy feuds. Sarte ‘s “The Plague” states that we can’t raise our hand to help without causing harm. And lest one become paralzyed by inaction , I would add from a long ago Princeton commencement talk, “the only thing we need to learn is to not take ourselves so seriously.”
Keep at it, Phil. You’re on the right track, even if you, like all of us, make an occasional mistake.
Cheers,
David
p.s. What’s this “Dog killed in small plane crash” all about? For a second I thought it was about you.
“Jimmy Carter sent all kinds of money and weapons to the Islamic rebels”
Jimmy Carter sent some and Ronald Reagan sent even more. It was a bipartisan affair.
“Jimmy Carter sent all kinds of money and weapons to the Islamic rebels”
Are you loosing it or something Phillip? You might want to check out when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, check when Reagan became president, review things like Iran Contra, etc etc.
Also give this book a read.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446514527/qid=1085781742/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6877501-4220732?v=glance&s=books
But What are the goals of US government in those places? (Afganistan and Iraq). Do You think is democracy or something good for that people?. I think US is only looking just some social stability to achive the great goal.. Assure safe access to Natural Gas (pipeline through Afganistan) and control of Oil Production in Iraq.
Philip: I’m curious–what’s your source of information on Pakistan and Afghanistan? For claims like we are “not achieving our goals,” “not welcome in either place”?
That dog story is sad. It kind of confirms a couple of themes that have been explored in this blog before. First, the tendency of people to use up safety margins. I landed at the airport in question in 2003. It is surrounded by mountains and there is no RADAR coverage from Air Traffic Control. This pilot was going in there at night and in the clouds (“instrument meteorological conditions”). He (chances are he was a guy) was doing a non-precision approach (VOR) rather than an easier instrument landing system (ILS or “precision”) approach. He should have been able to do this without too much risk because of his superior qualifications. This guy had an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, which is the highest class of pilot in the U.S. (the other two being Private and Commercial).
The second theme is the general inadvisability of doing non-precision approaches, especially in areas without RADAR and without a copilot. It is a somewhat challenging operation and there is nobody to back you up, either on the ground or in the plane.
So this is a good lesson for us pilots as we get more experienced and therefore more overconfident.
Neil, if you have any doubts as to whether we are not welcome in those two countries, you need to widen your media consumption beyond FOX News and talk radio.
> That dog story is sad.
President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and asks the barman: “Isn’t that Bush and Powell sitting over there?”
The barman says, “Yep, that’s them.” So the guy walks over and says, “Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?”
Bush says, “We’re planning WW III “. And the guy says, “Really? What’s going to happen?” Bush says, “Well, we’re going to kill 140 million Iraqis this time and one blonde with big boobs.
The guy exclaimed, “A blonde with big boobs? Why kill a blonde with big boobs?” Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, “See? I told you no one would care about the 140 million Iraqis!”
Has everyone poked through the prescient War College paper by now?
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs/2003/reconirq/reconirq.htm
There’s no point to power if you don’t use it. As an American, I feel it’s our job to help other nations experiment a little with new governments, letting them try out new ones every so often. But if we’re going to ignore the fine minds of our militaries, we’re just wasting them as if we didn’t use them in the first place.
The Army War College blisteringly condemed the Iraq invasion. I don’t see your point.
I could point out that the military is for implementation issues and not deciding policy, which would neatly answer your question. But looking at a couple disturbingly serious comments on this thread, which appears really about:
– a satirical thought (apologizing for mistakes, what is he smoking…)
– innocents are jailed for 15 years and our national response is “oops”
I couldn’t bring myself to make a 100% serious post. Really just asking if everyone read the paper I linked to.
Yep, in mid 1979 the us began to aid the mujahideen. At least that was alleged by Robert Gates (former director of cia) and Zbginiew Brzezinksi (Carter’s nat sec adv) in their memoirs.
http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Natrajan-0109xx-Afghan%20Timeline.htm
Of course, coming to the aid of a (formerly) democratic ally where a series of military coups were in process should not come as any major suprise.
We should not forget that the not-yet-president Reagan crowd was playing around with adnan khashoggi, trading arms with both iran and iraq and (allegedly) preventing the release of the us hostages in iran in time for the us election in nov 1980. Add to that the continuing 6Billion dollars of aid to the mujahideen in the ’80s and it is pretty clear who put the taliban into control of afghanistan.
Of course the point to this thread is government apology…
Sure, us foreign policy leaves plenty of room for apology, but this is unlikely to happen. It is much more likely to see the eventual opening of trade (ala mainland china, vietnam, and eventually cuba and n korea).
What I would expect would be personal acceptance of responsibility and, if not a direct apology, then at least action. Little things like mediating peace, monitoring democratic reforms, etc…
The sort of things that you would see from Jimmy Carter, but never from Reagan or Bush(sr).
For all of their meddling in the region, the recent republican ex-presidents have had little to offer in the way of apology or action. That is shameful.
Tayssir John Gabbour,
So, I read the document. Basically it says that winning the peace is much harder than winning the war. That winning the peace means a large-scale mobilization for a long period of time, that brutal occupation is a reality of this. All that isn’t new. It’s the Hawk argument that has worked so well for the Israelis and the English. Something along the lines of “Peace will break out any day now if we just stay the course”.
The question remains: if we seriously think that we have “the one right way to live”, and imposing that way to live on other people, peacefully if possible, violently if necessary, then you have to acknowledge that we are more an empire than a republic. And isn’t that exactly what we stand against, on principle? What are we if we become what we most deplore? What justification do we have except the age-old justification of any state: the will to exert power over people. Pure dominion.
Don’t misunderstand: I’m not outright condemning your posting, I’m just saying these are the choices. We should be honest about the choices.
Considering the technological options that are available to the us (jdams, cruise-missles, advanced command and control, total air superiority, etc…) going into a country and toppeling a government is relatively easy.
If you really want to create some sort of long term change in the government of a country, then a long-term commitment, or ‘staying the course’, is necessary.
In order to maintain a sustained military presence, it is absolutley necessary to involve more than just a few major countries in this endeavour. For this reason, diplomacy is the utmost weapon in any conflct and the united nations is the field that this battle must be one on.
Any leader that ignores this necessity, and mis-spends the valor of their armed forces as a result, is mis-directed at best.
Don’t apologize.
Don’t admit mistakes.
Both show weakness.
Never expose your soft underbelly, it leaves you sucseptible to enemy attack.
When there is nothing to be gained toward your own goal, why admit anything ?
Nick Bauman,
Well, by deciding to nation-build Iraq, we’ve chosen to move towards empire. This was my real objection to the war: by undertaking it, we are not acting in a self-interested manner.
We were lucky though. The current administration is not only wrong, but incompetent as any CEO who ignores his underlings. Had they been competent, our country would be on a much more disturbing course.
I respectfully think you’ve glossed over the paper. “But merely ‘toughing it out’ is not a solution. The longer the occupation continues, the greater the potential it will disrupt society rather than rehabilitate it. Thus, important and complex goals must be accomplished as quickly as possible,” it says. (p.42)
For a while, I didn’t think there were any sane, non-binary people in America. Beyond left and right. These papers were a breath of fresh air to me, confirming that these people exist, just sometimes they’re unable or made afraid to speak. So I mention them, returning the favor.
History is full of examples of good intentions going bad, it all boils down to the type of leadership your country (USA) has at the time, Carter good on domestic, lousy on foreign, Reagan, lousy on domestic, good on foreign. It has always been this way sine 1776, whatever your government of the time’s philosophy usually this dictates your meddling in other countries politics. It took the bombing of Pearl Harbor before you would come to the aid of those being destroyed by Hitler, just think of how many of the Holocaust victims may have been saved had you entered a year earlier. I digress, my point is you should not act alone if your convictions are strong enough and you have the full support of the World Community, the invasion of Iraq or the removal of Saddamm Hussein should have been done through the United Nations or if that is not suitable then through NATO, at least it would be a combined effort. Bottom line though is the job should have been finished in 1991, that was when the iron was hot. 13 years later and you are losing troops because why???. So what’s the point in saying sorry. The deed is done, live up to your responsibilities and ensure you don’t make the same mistake twice, children learn to avoid the same mistake after awhile I am sure lofty politicians can do the same, if that’s what they want.
I guess the point of saying sorry is about acknowledging the truth. The truth does not change depending on our ability to stomach it.
Generally a good point. But would you say that we should pull out of Montana because of the unabomber? While the Iraqis don’t like us, they like that we are there now. At least according to the poll at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf. Among the hopeful bits for this mess – 55% think they are better off now, (adding in “about the same” gives 79%. And do they want us there now…
Q29 – How long do you think U.S. and other Coalition Forces should remain in Iraq?
Base = Respondents who are aware of the coalition forces
They should leave now 15.1
They should remain for a few months 8.3
They should remain for six months to a year 6.1
They should remain for more than one year 4.3
They should remain until security is restored 18.3
They should remain until an Iraqi government is in place 35.8
They should never leave 1.5
Difficult to say 10.6
Total 100.0
The unhopeful: 26% of the folks interviewed thought it was absolutely wrong for us to invade. While 41% think the war liberated iraq, 41% think it humiliated Iraq. Fully 18% think attacks on coalition forces are acceptable compared to 1.5% acceptability for attacks on Iraqi police.
The raw data is much more interesting than this synopsis though, so go check it out. (Another gem: the esteem for Japan). We get such a weird little slice from the media (I don’t think it’s a conspiracy of the left or the right). It’s nice to see some slightly rawer data even if it is collected by a bunch of english blokes walking around with clipboards.
Same comment now with formating!
Generally a good point. But would you say that we should pull out of Montana because of the unabomber? While the Iraqis don’t like us, they like that we are there now. At least according to the poll at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_04_iraqsurvey.pdf. Among the hopeful bits for this mess – 55% think they are better off now, adding in “about the same” gives 79%. And do they want us there now?
Q29 – How long do you think U.S. and other Coalition Forces should remain in Iraq?
They should leave now 15.1
They should remain for a few months 8.3
They should remain for six months to a year 6.1
They should remain for more than one year 4.3
They should remain until security is restored 18.3
They should remain until an Iraqi government is in place 35.8
They should never leave 1.5
Difficult to say 10.6
Total 100.0
The unhopeful: 26% of the folks interviewed thought it was absolutely wrong for us to invade. While 41% think the war liberated iraq, 41% think it humiliated Iraq. Fully 18% think attacks on coalition forces are acceptable compared to 1.5% acceptability for attacks on Iraqi police.
The raw data is much more interesting than this synopsis though, so go check it out. (Another gem: the esteem for Japan). We get such a weird little slice from the media (I don’t think it’s a conspiracy of the left or the right). It’s nice to see some slightly rawer data even if it is collected by a bunch of english blokes walking around with clipboards.