I can't keep up...

Trying to keep up with the Bush administration is almost impossible. I expressed similar problems in Some explanation about this blog...and a "thank you," but I raise them again in order to describe what I see as another component of the Bush SOP.

I spent a good deal of time putting together my initial analysis and commentary on Bush's Inaugural Address. Then I found an excellent article by Fareed Zakaria which I wanted to make the basis for some follow-up analysis. More specifically, as I started reading the article, I found one paragraph which I wanted to use. Although I downloaded the entire article, I did not read past that paragraph. Instead, I began searching for similar expressions elsewhere on the web. In the course of that endeavor, I came across a post by Kevin Drum of Political Animal that basically said that White House aides and Bush's father said that ol' George's speech did not really mean what it so forcefully said, so there was another topic I had to start working on. Then I went back and read the entire Zakaria article. And there I found this delicious passage:

Convinced that bringing freedom to a country meant simply getting rid of the tyrant, the Bush administration seems to have done virtually no serious postwar planning to keep law and order, let alone to build the institutions of a democratic state. If this sounds like an exaggeration, consider the extraordinary words in the “after-action report” of the most important division of the American Army in Iraq, the Third Infantry Division, quoted in a recent essay by Michael O’Hanlon. It reads: “Higher headquarters did not provide the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) with a plan for Phase IV [the postwar phase]. As a result, Third Infantry Division transitioned into Phase IV in the absence of guidance.”

(emphasis added). This is exactly what I have been saying in all my posts about planning for the post war period! I will discuss O'Hanlon's essay either today or tomorrow, and here's a preview. While my research and analysis is largely in agreement with O'Hanlon, he does not address the fact that Joint Publication 5-00.1, Joint Doctrine for Campaign Planning, squarely lays the primary and ultimate responsibility for such planning on the National Command Authorities, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. I covered this is detail in Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period, A note on the applicability of JP 5-00.1, and More on the principles in JP 5-00.1. But I digress...

This post shows an example of another component of the Bush administration SOP. These clowns have done so many things that are questionable at best and positively stupid at worst, and always there are several controversies going on at once. There has not been a "break in the action." The mistakes and controversies have been a continuous stream. For a time I could find absolutely no rational explanation for this pattern, but I have since come up with a theory...

I submit that this conduct is intentional and planned. See, if there are numerous problems at a given time, it is difficult for anyone to stay focused on any one problem. As soon as one problem starts receiving high scrutiny, along comes another one to take attention away from the first one. And then the Bush administration can turn its efforts back to the first problem or another matter altogether. In effect, the process becomes a shell game or a hand of three-card monte, with the primary objective being to make it impossible for anyone to keep an eye on the pea or winning card. The secondary objective is to get everyone so caught up in the chase (the effort to find the pea or winning card) that they lose sight of everything else. This process then gives the Bush adminstration flexibility in which to conduct all its massive bullshit.

Sound crazy? Perhaps, but show me another explanation. One alternative is that these clowns are really, really stupid and/or delusional. If my theory is correct, then they are supremely twisted and sick. Both choices are frightening.