Politics
Machiavelli’s Revenge
President Bush was a Prince of a guy, but not when it came to Iraq.
George W. Bush’s relationship with Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar was a close one. They were sometimes spotted holding hands in public in observance of Saudi custom. So when Bandar came calling at the White House shortly after Baghdad had fallen to American forces, we might expect that what he said carried serious weight.
Bandar was worried about the stability of the country. He urged Bush not to disband Iraq’s military or intelligence services. The prince advised that Bush should remove the Iraqi leadership “because of their bloody hands” but not do away with Iraqi institutions. Rather, he should fire everyone down to the rank of colonel in the military and a similar rank in the intelligence services, and use those underlings to find Saddam Hussein, who was still on the lam, and to root out Baathist loyalists and other troublemakers.
Bandar encountered resistance so he pressed the point. The underlings might not be the greatest people, but they could help to stabilize Iraq, and it wasn’t as if the U.S. government would be obliged to hand the country over to them. “Look, bad people find bad people and then after that you get rid of them.” Bandar said. “Double cross them. I mean, for God’s sake, who said that we owe them anything?”
“That’s too Machiavellian,” said someone who took part in that White House meeting. According to Bob Woodward, the speaker was either President Bush or national security adviser and future secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. The Bush administration went ahead and disbanded the military — with predictable results. Iraq devolved into chaos and sectionalism, and far too much blood was shed.
“Too Machiavellian…” It would be harder to come up with a more pithy summary of why Bush’s foreign policy fell apart. He never understood that his soaring rhetoric of human freedom needed to be tempered by guile and the particular interests of his own nation.
It’s one thing to say that “freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God” or that “liberty and justice light the path to peace,” as Bush did in his final televised address from the White House. Those are fairly standard staples of presidential rhetoric. It’s quite another to decide that the world should conform to your ideals and go mucking about the globe assuming that everyone — from heads of state to angry mullahs to rock throwing, mortar-launching mobs — will suddenly slap their foreheads and wonder, “Why didn’t we think of that?”
Many critics claim that Bush lied us into war in Iraq but that gives him more credit than he merits. Bush is a decent but extremely naive man who could never see the wisdom in Machiavelli’s advice that, say, a ruler should preach virtue but practice it sparingly; encourage the oppressed but not with the force of your own armies, unless you’re in the market for new territory; regard reports of spies with skepticism; and be wary of the advice of flatterers and men with axes to grind.
Bush talked often of good and evil, but couldn’t recognize evil when he observed it in its more banal permutations. He said publicly that Vladimir Putin had a good soul and then appeared shocked when Putin went on to behave like just about every other Russian autocrat save Czar Alexander II. He never could understand why many countries resisted going into Iraq to spread freedom.
In fact, Bush got so caught up in his notion of democracy promotion that his State Department insisted Hamas be allowed to stand for election in Palestine. The geniuses at Foggy Bottom looked at polls that predicted the terror-sponsoring organization probably wouldn’t win, took a cue from their starry-eyed commander-in-chief, and figured, what could it hurt?
About the Author
Jeremy Lott is editor of RealClearPolicy.com, RealClearBooks.com and RealClearReligion.org and associate editor of RealClearScience.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (67) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Jeremy Lott
More Articles From Politics
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/20/machiavellis-revenge
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- The Thatcher Legacy
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jason | 1.20.09 @ 6:47AM
This is sarcasm, right?
I dont' want Machiavellian leaders in this country. Conservatives can't afford to be Machiavellian. They'll inevitably go down like Nixon. Was Reagan Machiavellian?
http://www.rightklik.net/
Jeremy Lott | 1.20.09 @ 7:16AM
>Was Reagan Machiavellian?
Yes.
Michigan-Matt| 1.20.09 @ 7:39AM
Not only was Reagan Machiavellian, his wife and teammate made up for any shortcomings he might have exhibited from time to time --she was ruthless and vicious to the Bushes, to Don Regan (RIP) and anyone else who crossed her star-gazing astronomic plains.
Reagan makes the Prince look lame and tame by comparison but duplicity, cunning and double-dealing was what helped Reagan take on an incumbent GOP President in 1976 and still be able to claim the 13th Admendment was his: Speak no ill of a fellow Republican.
Yeah, he was.
Ivan Ivanovich| 1.20.09 @ 7:56AM
Machiavelli has been unfairly denigrated. Like the name, Adolph the name cannot be used without a feeling of horror. To his credit it seems Don Rumsfeld has read “The Prince” and Sun Tsu’s “Art of War”.
JP| 1.20.09 @ 8:35AM
The late thinker Alan Bloom hit the nail on the head when he wrote that Machiavelli was the first political philosopher to advise young rulers to turn thier gaze from Heavan and fix it firmly on earth; do not look for Divine Justice, but use one's own wits to keep one's own head. In politics, especially in a democracy such as ours , there are only temporary alliances. I think President Bush, as he leaves office, realizes this.
President Reagan was brutal when dealing with underlings that crossed him. Watts, Stockman, Poindexter, and Haig were just a few examples. President Bush by contrast never really had control of his staff or his domestic political agenda. His own party, especially the Senate, ran rough shod over him; high level Cabinet members (especially Tenet and Powell) leaked constantly to the MSM, and much of his domestic policy talent left early in frustration. Sitting atop all of this serenely was the President.
Roy| 1.20.09 @ 9:14AM
Machiavelli would have just dropped an A Bomb on Fallujah at the first sign of unrest. He would have said that that was, in the long run, more merciful, since it would have stopped the "insurgency" in its tracks. If he had given a hoot at all. Much more likely, he would have said that it didn't really matter what Saddam did to his own people, to his neighbors, or for that matter to Americans, as long as Bush's own pockets were full.
It is not, in fact, the case that the Bush administration had the attitude described by Lott but it is so satisfying to be able to make this trivial argument that it is probably impossible to stop pundits from making it. Does he really think that SecDef Rumsfeld believed this? Douglas Feith's book says, in what should be a "duh", "Joy at liberation, however great, obviously could not result in a country spontaneously organizing itself." Feith was Rumsfeld's right hand man and obviously Rumsfeld knew this too.
The commenter who brings up Bush's lack of control over his subordinates is more on point. Bush allowed his subordinates to pursue policies that contradicted his agenda and each other. Obama will not have this problem because the subordinates in doing so were encouraged by the unremitting adoration of the media and the full support of Congressional Democrats. Anyone who backstabs Obama won't get the former, and likely won't get the latter either since Republicans just don't act that way(I'll eat my words if one Republican ever compares US troops to Pol Pot).
Roy| 1.20.09 @ 9:26AM
And I'd like some evidence for the following statement, please:
>>He never could understand why many countries resisted going into Iraq to spread freedom.
Jeremy Lott | 1.20.09 @ 10:43AM
Roy: It's clear from your post that you have no actual knowledge of Machiavelli's writings.
Ed| 1.20.09 @ 11:42AM
It is obvious from Roy's post that he doesn't have any actual knowledge, period.
Sean| 1.20.09 @ 11:43AM
Machiavelli has long been vilified for telling the truth. I believe he wrote something to the effect that "Man more easily forgets the lose of his father than the loss of his patrimony." It is well to remember that when dealing with the Middle East.
Alan Brooks| 1.20.09 @ 12:32PM
those who dislike Machiavelli most tend to be Machiavellian.
something the old master himself would have appreciated.
thirteen28| 1.20.09 @ 1:19PM
Spot-on, Mr. Lott.
Frank Natoli| 1.20.09 @ 1:59PM
This is the best epitaph to date for the Bush Administration, and consequently the country. Of course if the President didn't listen to the Prince, who did he listen to? When the illegal immigration bill was the hot issue in Washington, and the President solidly in favor of the mass importation of Latin American poverty, talk radio host without peer Mark Levin concluded that the President's conclusion was religion based, i.e., he listened to Jesus and not the Prince. That would also explain why the President, over and over again, loved his enemies, even when they returned his kindness with a knife in the back.
To be fair to the de-Baath-ification process, this was arguably the same as the de-Nazification process, for which there was also supposed to be no exceptions. George Patton took a somewhat more pragmatic view, perhaps a Prince Bandar like view, and those who chose to demonize Patton were principally motivated by this particular issue.
ruth| 1.20.09 @ 3:53PM
Excellent post, Mr. Lott. I think that Bush's 'extreme naivete' also led to his failures with his true adversaries: Liberals. Unfortunately for us.
toad| 1.20.09 @ 5:52PM
Machiavelli is most often vilified by people who have a light background if any of history and who also have not actually read his books.
People are often shocked when they find out that Machiavelli advised keeping the populace armed as opposed to depending solely on a "government" paid force for order and "actions."
Diplomacy is often nothing but blackmail with a smile. So does one owe his word to a blackmailer?
Kat| 1.20.09 @ 6:48PM
I swear it's that 'Compassionate Conservative' crap.
Roy| 1.20.09 @ 7:19PM
Ed: Nyah nyah nyah boo boo, so's your old man.
Lott: Fine, if that's how you want to play it. It has indeed been a while since I last picked up old Wicked Nick, but I don't find my takeaway much changed. In practice, he treated the continuation of the prince in power as the highest good, and therefore in my opinion, would have advised Bush to do whatever was necessary to keep power, however evil or underhanded.
Chapter XVII: "Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed. Therefore a prince..ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise..."
That was what I was referring to. So, I think he would have wanted Bush to act like Cesare Borgia. This would basically have entailed rounding up a few high profile dissidents in Fallujah or Ramadi and publicly feeding them to the dogs. Now, suppose that didn't work?(with Al Qaeda I don't think it would have been enough) What would Machiavelli have recommended then? Well, it would still be better for Fallujans as a whole to suffer, even if that got Bush "the reputation for cruelty". So yes - I think he would have - ok maybe not nuked Fallujah, but at least dropped a nice big daisy cutter on the marketplace. The "insurgency" would have ended the next day, sparing them five years of "disorder". Would Iraq have been better off? I don't think so, but it's a matter of opinion.
It's impossible to imagine a prince of the kind Machiavelli approved of tolerating a situation where 12 year old girls knew about planned IED attacks. Or tolerating any armed resistance at all from people he could wipe out on a whim.
Another example: Machiavelli has a whole chapter "Concerning those who have obtained a principality by wickedness". To these people, he advises:
"..in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily..For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less..."
So yeah. I think he would have favored a quick massacre over a long, drawn-out "counterinsurgency". Though it's futile even discussing it, because he was as the title indicates, advising a "prince", not somebody who intends to submit to democratic accountability, checks and balances.
A lot of people use "Machiavellian" as a synonym for "cunning" - if that's all that is meant fine.
I'll take my point about the actual beliefs of the Bush administration as made.
Scott A Joseph, MD| 1.20.09 @ 7:24PM
Yes, Mr. Lott. Spot on.
Two things Bush was not: a plotter and communicator. His dad could plot, but not communicate. Obama is a communicator, but he is a babe in the woods as a geo-political plotter.
I think the President should follow a simple piece of advice: keep taxes low, the economy humming, your presses/ media/web free, and your foreign enemies/allies in fear or awe. How you do this is of no consequence. As Al Davis said: "just win, baby." Presidents who forget that pay with OUR freedoms and lives.
I doubt the Chosen One will measure up. I think more Carter than Clinton.
Alan Brooks| 1.20.09 @ 8:06PM
boy do people hate Bush! you'd think he was an egomaniacal bungler like LBJ.
Bush, okay sure the hispanic vote pandering was ..well. never mind, its too depressing. Damned foolish.
i spent an entire season in Phoenix AZ and it was frightening, "dipped in Hell" a wag called the city.
foolish yes. Bush Now Now-ism. but not Machiavellian. the Italian master politician and writer was no fool.
ruth| 1.20.09 @ 8:15PM
Dr. Joseph, what are the odds Obama will follow your great advice?
Alan Brooks| 1.20.09 @ 8:16PM
Michigun Mat,
not just Nancy, Geo F. Will was vicious to Bush 41 too. but for a reason.
ruth| 1.20.09 @ 8:16PM
Alan, Mr. Lott has a point, right?
ruth| 1.20.09 @ 8:17PM
Why did Will dislike Bush 41?
Alan Brooks| 1.20.09 @ 8:31PM
look Bush made terrible mistakes, okay he wasnt Machiavellian enough to listen some raghe_d prince named Band-Aid or whatever. okay Bush made a mistake.
lets leave it at this: Jeremy Lott knows how to transport in the WayBack machine over five years in time to be Machiavellian.
good for Jeremy.
Alan Brooks| 1.20.09 @ 8:34PM
of course Lott has a point-- i was saving the clincher for the above post (am VERY machiavellian)
Will didnt like 41 because he caved in after Desert Storm.
ruth| 1.20.09 @ 8:39PM
Read my lips?
ruth| 1.20.09 @ 8:41PM
Alan, you must know that I love Laura and George W., I'm just so upset about our party. You understand, right?
Alan Brooks| 1.20.09 @ 9:33PM
understood.
but as for prince Band Aid, he can go to his 72 baby prostitutes in paradise any time he wants.
what do we owe Band Aid? there are other princes in that oil derrick of a nation..
vaughn| 1.20.09 @ 9:37PM
What a pathetic blog posting. Where was the Clinton/Albright Machiavelli when Bin Laden was served up to them on a platter? Do you honestly believe there is any Mach in Obambi? Haven't the libs complained of Cheney Mach for the past 8 years? Bottom line: Bush had and has the balls that neutered Clinton didn't and I suspect that Obie doesn't.
ruth| 1.20.09 @ 10:16PM
I give President Bush major kudos for our national security, but he could have used a little guile with the dummocraps.
Gerry Shuller| 1.20.09 @ 10:57PM
Huh - when did April Fools Day move?
Todd| 1.20.09 @ 11:18PM
Bush's error was that he did NOT understand Biblical principles for peace, national security, freedom, and war.
For example, Bush erroneously claims a Biblical basis for the universiality of freedom--that the Almighty offers civil freedoms to all nations. God offers the conditional freedom in Christ to all, but He does promise a rose garden to the nations. After all, God determined that His chosen and beloved Israel be taken into captivity for 40 years by Babylon and later Assyria because of their sustained and gross disobedience.
Bush instead should have exhorted the nations--starting with America--to be nations of virtue, from which some degree of civil freedoms inevitably results. Unfortunately, many nations of the West, especially, focus first on freedom rather than on virtue. And for this error, we pay a dear price. There is also a difference between what God says to the nations and what He says to the individual, but I will leave that alone for now.
Kat| 1.20.09 @ 11:34PM
I don't think you can be truly free without virtue.
Richard Berg| 1.21.09 @ 2:04AM
Todd, I agree. The bible says " Where the Lord is there is liberty" As he is slowly pushed out of the lives of individuals, our nation , a reflection of who we are and what we serve, will slowly give up the rest of our liberties. And the sad part about it , before the masses figure it out , it will be too late. Is it so hard to see that because of our history in believing in the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob that we have prospered. God said that "Whosever blesses Jacob will be blessed & whosoever curses Jacob will be cursed" The USA has been #1 in the support of Jacob who we all know had his named changed to Israel by God and so came the nation of Israel. Look around the earth. Look at the nations that have cursed her. Check out their lifestyles.
But one day we will give up on her too. And if there is anything left of America when we do, it wont be a pretty sight. To try and stop it from happening would be the equivalent of Peter cutting off the ear of the Roman soldier when they came to arrest Jesus . Jesus picked up the ear, put it back to the side of the soldiers face, and made him whole. Then Jesus went willingly to do what he knew had to be done. Did he want to die? No. He asked his Father if this cup could be passed, but not his will be done, but his Fathers. He said during his ministry " I always do those things which please the Father".
Flolks, as much as I hate to say this I don't think there is much time left. Israel has to be on its own, they have to be backed into a corner where there is no one to call for help but to the one (Not Barack Obama) that made a covenant with there forefathers. And then and only then will Isreal realize its dream of a nation whos' king is God `who will finally defeat all their enemies. If the way the USA has been heading in just the last couple of decades isn't enough to show you we are on a slippery slope then you are one of the blind and deceived and cannot see afar off. Most wont see it. Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there be which go in thereat, straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. I love America and what she used to stand for. But the recent elections and the bold faced lies and coverups of the MSM and seeing all these millions of people eating this up like honey has me convinced its almost over. If you have forgotten about God, call on him today, even if you haven't for years, he will still listen. He won't give us the cold shoulder even if you did it to him. Oh, how he loves you and me. God bless the USA
kat| 1.21.09 @ 3:52AM
I know what you say is true and I feel so alone. A nation that kills 50 million of its innocents will not stand. We have not cared for the least of those among us. And even after all of this--I do know in my heart that He still loves us--He always has.
Richard Berg| 1.21.09 @ 7:39AM
Yes Kat he always has, so much more than people will ever realize.
Nick| 1.21.09 @ 11:46AM
kat and Mr. Berg,
I know things look bleak, but never give up. The late Great Pope John Paul II constantly exhorted to the faithful the words of our Lord: "Be Not Afraid". In Christ there is no fear. Christ conquered death once and for all. Of what else is there to be afraid ? How could the martyrs have excepted their fate if not for the command "be not afraid". In Christ there is nothing but hope.
Just keep praying. And live your faith. Just think about how many times the scriptures tell us: " ...and Jesus went off and prayed". Our Lord was constantly praying. This is the easiest way to be Christ-like. And yet, speaking for myself, how much time do I waste, when I should have been praying? Far too much.
Be not afraid! Only through Christ is there true Hope (and change) you can believe in.
Michele San Pietro| 1.21.09 @ 3:13PM
The military intervention in Iraq may not have been done as best as possible. But a murderous dictator like Saddam was overthrown and executed, and that's a fact. I sincerely hope Obama will not decide to simply withdraw all troops from Iraq. This would mean leaving the country in the hands of heinous thugs, and it would mean a defeat for America and the free world.
ruth| 1.21.09 @ 3:16PM
Obama is too smart to screw up Iraq now. The war is won, thank God, and he would be blamed if he acted rashly.
Mike in NYC| 1.22.09 @ 1:18AM
Bush out Machiavellied everyone. He lied his way into Iraq with the intention of the whole thing going to crap and the international bankers running their economy and profiting on the rebuilding. It worked perfectly and almost no one suspects it went exactly as planned, they all think he screwed up.
He is the master.
ruth| 1.22.09 @ 2:05AM
Mikey, you dummocraps can't have it both ways. Either Bush is the biggest idiot in the history of the universe as many of you dolts claim or he is the most brilliant, evil mastermind in the history of the universe. Which is it, schizoid boy?
Peter Andersen| 2.3.09 @ 3:34PM
To quote the Prince as if it is a bible is taking Machiavelli out of context. The sentences and chapters of the Prince may seem very quotable but reading the Prince as a whole it seems to me that he says, that every situation is complex and should be valued on its own merits. It takes a knowledgeable prince or leader to evaluate all the advices Machiavelli gives. But one must not forget that the Prince was intended for an autocratic leader’s eyes i.e. a special case. To understand Machiavelli better one must know his much larger book “the discourses on the first ten books of Livy”. It seems that Bush did not heed either book and I would not be surprised if Obama has more than skimmed them.
hff| 11.18.09 @ 8:16PM
Mac TOD Converter,
TOD Converter for Windows
wangsir| 4.3.10 @ 2:43AM
Wonderful Blu-ray Ripper for Mac is the latest software that allows Mac users to rip Blu ray DVD on Mac OS X.
jonmi| 4.7.10 @ 9:27PM
Machiavelli's Revenge is good article thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica
mts mac | 4.22.10 @ 4:03AM
HD Video Converter for Mac is professional HD converter, provides you the functions of decording and encording HD videos.
Video Splitter for Mac is a powerful Mac video splitter software, that can split video on Mac OS X. This video splitter Mac also functions as a video cutter, movie trimmer for Mac users to split videos of any format.
koliytr| 4.28.10 @ 2:50PM
ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
dunia pewayangan
thanks for your information
vouchercodes | 1.6.11 @ 8:26AM
It is attracting.