RE-BAATHIFICATION?
It may be a little late for this, but it looks like George W Bush's position on the Ba'ath Party may have returned to where it was back in the good ol' days when we were giving them weapons:
One quibble with John King's article: Sure, Bremer was the Civilian Administrator at the time of "de-baathification", but the ban was put in place on Bush's orders. That is, Bush asked Bremer to do this. This was among the first things to happen under Bremer's CPA, having just replaced Mister Garner, who had other ideas.
Soooooo, is this an implicit admission of a mistake in White House policy? Even with the buck-passing (it was Bremer's fault!) that comes out in King's article? Well, whether or not that's the case, it's definitely another of Bush's flip flops!
Though in this case, it's a flop in the right direction, even if it might be a bit late. Some people have likened membership in the Iraqi Baath Party to membership in the Soviet Communist Party, as in it was a way, perhaps the only way, for some people to get a relatively decent-paying skilled job. Thus, a lot of people with party membership aren't necessarily hard-ass Saddam loyalists, but are merely members of the skilled class of Iraqi workers.
My two-cent analysis is that the de-baathification policy may have been a consequence of Bush's hypersimplistic "with us or against us" view. They joined the party, thus they must have been loyal to Saddam, therefore they must be *evil*, or *threat* or *danger*, or whatever word du jour we're using.
On the whole, the truth is that banning all Baathists was one of many CPA mistakes.
And of course, the Shi'ites will be overjoyed.
It may be a little late for this, but it looks like George W Bush's position on the Ba'ath Party may have returned to where it was back in the good ol' days when we were giving them weapons:
The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions.No doubt to trumpet the peaceful coexistence of man and fish.
The sweeping ban was put in place by civilian administrator Paul Bremer, but he now wants to change the policy as part of an effort to convince Sunnis, who dominate the party, that they are welcome members of the postwar political transition in Iraq.
There also have been complaints that the ban has kept teachers, engineers, well-trained technocrats and experienced military officers out of the difficult postwar transition.
Saddam headed the Baath Party in Iraq for decades, and its members were allowed educational opportunities and to hold key posts.
In Baghdad, Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor acknowledged the ban "sometimes excludes innocent, capable people who were Baathists in name only from playing a role in reconstructing Iraq.
"Those are the sorts of people for which there was a process built in to allow exceptions, to allow appeals, but the exceptions and appeals process doesn't do anybody any good if it is not expeditious," Senor said.
"We are reviewing the policy to see if we can better balance the expertise and experience," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters on Air Force One as President Bush traveled to Maine for an Earth Day event.
One quibble with John King's article: Sure, Bremer was the Civilian Administrator at the time of "de-baathification", but the ban was put in place on Bush's orders. That is, Bush asked Bremer to do this. This was among the first things to happen under Bremer's CPA, having just replaced Mister Garner, who had other ideas.
Soooooo, is this an implicit admission of a mistake in White House policy? Even with the buck-passing (it was Bremer's fault!) that comes out in King's article? Well, whether or not that's the case, it's definitely another of Bush's flip flops!
Though in this case, it's a flop in the right direction, even if it might be a bit late. Some people have likened membership in the Iraqi Baath Party to membership in the Soviet Communist Party, as in it was a way, perhaps the only way, for some people to get a relatively decent-paying skilled job. Thus, a lot of people with party membership aren't necessarily hard-ass Saddam loyalists, but are merely members of the skilled class of Iraqi workers.
My two-cent analysis is that the de-baathification policy may have been a consequence of Bush's hypersimplistic "with us or against us" view. They joined the party, thus they must have been loyal to Saddam, therefore they must be *evil*, or *threat* or *danger*, or whatever word du jour we're using.
On the whole, the truth is that banning all Baathists was one of many CPA mistakes.
And of course, the Shi'ites will be overjoyed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home