George W. Bush has always needed a bad guy. Bill Clinton was his original bad guy – more of a bad boy, really. During Mr. Bush’s first months in the Oval Office, any and all problems were blamed on “the previous administration.” Just when Mr. Bush had pushed that excuse to the limit of credibility, along came Osama bin Laden, the bad guy of George Bush’s dreams – tall, dark and terrorist. Mr. Bush could unload on Osama in ways he never could on Mr. Clinton; he could puff and strut before joint sessions of Congress, threatening to “smoke him out” and bring him in “dead or alive.”
As is so often the case with relationships that begin with great promise, the object of the suitor’s attention – in this case, Mr. Bin Laden – shows himself to be fickle and coy and the suitor’s ardor cooled as quickly as it had once flared. Weeks turned into months and Osama remained unsmoked, undead and un-brought in. Worse, he’d periodically pop up on video, as if he had nothing better to do than tease the POTUS. Mr. Bush’s passion turned to petulance and White House spokespeople – in a twist out of “Casablanca” – are now prohibited from mentioning Mr. Bin Laden’s name.
Like many men rebounding from an infatuation gone bad, George Bush sought solace by fanning the embers of an old relationship, trying to rekindle the flame. It wasn’t logical; these things rarely are, but Mr. Bush needed a bad guy and Saddam Hussein was not only available, he fit the profile. Osama was out, Saddam was in and the relief in the White House was palpable. Unlike Osama, Saddam could not disappear into a cave. He had to sit in his palace in Baghdad all through the saber rattling, the UN weapons inspections, the threats of invasion, the buildup to invasion and the invasion itself. He was only able to go into hiding for the post-invasion manhunt. Saddam provided Mr. Bush 18 months of service as a punching bag, culminating in a capture and humiliation just in time for Christmas. Truly, there are no friends like the old friends.
As Robert Frost warned us, however, nothing gold can stay and no sooner than Mr. Hussein was twiddling his manacled thumbs in a jail cell than Mr. Bush began casting about for a new bad guy. Had he been more patient, a Democratic front-runner would have emerged from the primaries for him to beat up on, but we know from the Osama episode that Mr. Bush is not one to let grass grow under his feet when he has a bad-guy Jones on and besides, Karl Rove probably warned him about peaking too soon on the Dems.
By the time the cherry blossoms were falling from the trees, Mr. Bush could wait no longer and settled on Moqtada al-Sadr as his new “bad guy.” By some lights, it was an inspired choice. Both men are fundamentalists, but of different religions, so there’s little chance for an unforeseen and untimely rapprochement. Mr. Sadr is young, more than 20 years Mr. Bush’s junior, something of a “trophy” bad guy and unlikely to up and die of natural causes before Mr. Bush can do him in. Like Saddam, Mr. Sadr doesn’t get around much, so the likelihood of his “pulling an Osama” is small.
Mr. Bush commenced the ritual dance in April by having the occupation forces close Mr. Sadr’s newspaper and attempt to arrest Mr. Sadr on a year-old murder charge (The old murder charge was a nice touch, a signal Mr. Bush had been watching with interest for some time.) The media played its part, calling Mr. Sadr a “junior” cleric (too big for his dishdash), undemocratic (compared to whom? Chalabi? Allawi?) and an ingrate (we named a Baghdad slum after his dad, what more could he want, proportional representation?).
There have been months of clashes, promises, cease-fires, truces made and broken and made again and all the bad stuff is – of course – Moqtada al-Sadr’s fault. Now he’s an outcast, not just George Bush’s bad guy but Iyad Allawi’s bad guy, too. Because Mr. Sadr has an army – the Madhi army – the new powers that be in Iraq have an excuse to disenfranchise large segments of the Shi’ite majority if they so choose, by labeling them “Madhi insurgents.” Now Moqtada al-Sadr is done. He can be killed, jailed or marginalized. It doesn’t matter; he’s served his function in establishing the new Iraq.
Bringing that relationship to a successful conclusion, George Bush is now free to turn his attention to the new bad guy – John Kerry.
The Bad Guy
George W. Bush has always needed a bad guy. Bill Clinton was his original bad guy – more of a bad boy, really. During Mr. Bush’s first months in the Oval Office, any and all problems were blamed on “the previous administration.” Just when Mr. Bush had pushed that excuse to the limit of credibility, along came Osama bin Laden, the bad guy of George Bush’s dreams – tall, dark and terrorist. Mr. Bush could unload on Osama in ways he never could on Mr. Clinton; he could puff and strut before joint sessions of Congress, threatening to “smoke him out” and bring him in “dead or alive.”
As is so often the case with relationships that begin with great promise, the object of the suitor’s attention – in this case, Mr. Bin Laden – shows himself to be fickle and coy and the suitor’s ardor cooled as quickly as it had once flared. Weeks turned into months and Osama remained unsmoked, undead and un-brought in. Worse, he’d periodically pop up on video, as if he had nothing better to do than tease the POTUS. Mr. Bush’s passion turned to petulance and White House spokespeople – in a twist out of “Casablanca” – are now prohibited from mentioning Mr. Bin Laden’s name.
Like many men rebounding from an infatuation gone bad, George Bush sought solace by fanning the embers of an old relationship, trying to rekindle the flame. It wasn’t logical; these things rarely are, but Mr. Bush needed a bad guy and Saddam Hussein was not only available, he fit the profile. Osama was out, Saddam was in and the relief in the White House was palpable. Unlike Osama, Saddam could not disappear into a cave. He had to sit in his palace in Baghdad all through the saber rattling, the UN weapons inspections, the threats of invasion, the buildup to invasion and the invasion itself. He was only able to go into hiding for the post-invasion manhunt. Saddam provided Mr. Bush 18 months of service as a punching bag, culminating in a capture and humiliation just in time for Christmas. Truly, there are no friends like the old friends.
As Robert Frost warned us, however, nothing gold can stay and no sooner than Mr. Hussein was twiddling his manacled thumbs in a jail cell than Mr. Bush began casting about for a new bad guy. Had he been more patient, a Democratic front-runner would have emerged from the primaries for him to beat up on, but we know from the Osama episode that Mr. Bush is not one to let grass grow under his feet when he has a bad-guy Jones on and besides, Karl Rove probably warned him about peaking too soon on the Dems.
By the time the cherry blossoms were falling from the trees, Mr. Bush could wait no longer and settled on Moqtada al-Sadr as his new “bad guy.” By some lights, it was an inspired choice. Both men are fundamentalists, but of different religions, so there’s little chance for an unforeseen and untimely rapprochement. Mr. Sadr is young, more than 20 years Mr. Bush’s junior, something of a “trophy” bad guy and unlikely to up and die of natural causes before Mr. Bush can do him in. Like Saddam, Mr. Sadr doesn’t get around much, so the likelihood of his “pulling an Osama” is small.
Mr. Bush commenced the ritual dance in April by having the occupation forces close Mr. Sadr’s newspaper and attempt to arrest Mr. Sadr on a year-old murder charge (The old murder charge was a nice touch, a signal Mr. Bush had been watching with interest for some time.) The media played its part, calling Mr. Sadr a “junior” cleric (too big for his dishdash), undemocratic (compared to whom? Chalabi? Allawi?) and an ingrate (we named a Baghdad slum after his dad, what more could he want, proportional representation?).
There have been months of clashes, promises, cease-fires, truces made and broken and made again and all the bad stuff is – of course – Moqtada al-Sadr’s fault. Now he’s an outcast, not just George Bush’s bad guy but Iyad Allawi’s bad guy, too. Because Mr. Sadr has an army – the Madhi army – the new powers that be in Iraq have an excuse to disenfranchise large segments of the Shi’ite majority if they so choose, by labeling them “Madhi insurgents.” Now Moqtada al-Sadr is done. He can be killed, jailed or marginalized. It doesn’t matter; he’s served his function in establishing the new Iraq.
Bringing that relationship to a successful conclusion, George Bush is now free to turn his attention to the new bad guy – John Kerry.
(c) Mark Floegel, 2004