Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

The most surprising thing the president said, to me, was his admission that he didn't ask about casualties when going into Iraq. He couldn't, or wouldn't, answer Lehrer when asked whether the 30,000 Iraqis killed and the 2,100 Americans were something he expected. He said "not really" when asked if he had estimated how many deaths there would be.

I believe him on this. It fits in with all the other evidence that indicates the administration had made up its mind from day one to go into Iraq. I'm surprised the president admitteed it, not that it happened.

Should we be going to war with the commander in chief not concerned enough to ask about potential casualties?

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

And of course you would automatically trust any military estimates of same like leaders did regarding Vietnam, right?

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

Don't you want your president figuring what caualties might be when assessing the risks and benefits of going to war? He can give estimates credence or reject their validity, but not to have any?

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

Risks: Poor Americans and Iraqis get killed.

Benefits: War is good for business! Invest your son.

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

[ QUOTE ]
And of course you would automatically trust any military estimates of same like leaders did regarding Vietnam, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

What a non sequitur. If this is the best you can do in defense of your boy Bush, you might well be advised not to post at all.

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

What surprised me was his body language when he responded to the first 2 or 3 questions of the interview.

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

[ QUOTE ]
And of course you would automatically trust any military estimates of same like leaders did regarding Vietnam, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

By military estimate, do you mean something that was conveyed by McNamara or Rumsfeld?

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

Andy, depending on how grave the mission is believed to be, it might not be relevant to explicitly estimate casualty figures.

Consider WWII. Obviously very different circumstances, but I don't think expected casualties were a very pressing concern at the time.

Bush, and other members of his administration, believe strongly in what they are trying to accomplish in Iraq. I personally believe that they are being blinded quite a bit by optomism, but I don't doubt that Bush really believes in what he is trying to accomplish in Iraq.

I suspect he thought this war would have casualties of roughly the scale as the first Persian Gulf war, but that he didn't really manage to develop a good sense of what was to come in Iraq after the invasion.

Also, Bush is very uncomfortable with accountability. Almost any criticism of his policies is deflected as part of "the blame game" or "helps our enemies." I am not sure he is psychologically capable of taking full responsibility for his decisions as president (which is an *immense* burden for every president) without deflecting away most/all of the criticism of him.

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

"I don't think expected casualties were a very pressing concern at the time."

I can't speak to the whole war, but I know a bit about the end of the war with Japan. There was a great deal of discussion of expected casualties that would occur were an invasion of Japan to take place. President Truman, and others, used those casualty estimates (although Truman altered the numbers to suit his purposes) as a mean of justifying hte use of the atomic bombs. How could a president evaluate the efficacy of a particular action without discussion of casualties?

I agree with your perceptive assessments in the last three paragraphs of your post.

Re: Bush\'s Interview With Lehrer
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Bush is very uncomfortable with accountability. Almost any criticism of his policies is deflected as part of "the blame game" or "helps our enemies." I am not sure he is psychologically capable of taking full responsibility for his decisions as president (which is an *immense* burden for every president) without deflecting away most/all of the criticism of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The relevant question is accountability to what standards? To a standard of how well actual performance matches up to a reasonable estimate of casualties and resources to be undergone, or to an artificial bar set high by those whose only political objective is to damage the president in the public opinion and obscure their own lack of legitimate policy alternatives.

And a second important point in any policy analysis is whether it is better to undergo a certain cost now so as not to have to pay an even higher one in the future when problems are not dealt with at the earliest opportunity. In this regard, the democrats frequently seem like investors who only focus on quarterly figures regardless of whether such pressure makes a company take actions that cost profits in the long run, which in a strategic military/geo-political setting translates into even more lives lost in the future when terrorists and rogue nations are not dealt with promptly. The appeasing actions of european leaders with regards to Hitler in the 1930s is best example of the consequences of such failures to act now for less casualties/resources than it will take to address the problem in the future.