Asymmetrical Information

What are you kidding, of course they won't.

Give them an inch and they'll demand a mile.

Bush did not apologize for the soldiers' actions, only the consequences. What said he was "I'm sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners.. I'm sorry that people will get the wrong impression of the United States.."

This is like witnessing a car accident and saying "I'm sorry you got hurt."

The media is spinning this into a full blown Clintonesque-style apology when it is no such thing.

Eh, what? At the risk of seeming willfully stupid, where did he apologize?

I find the majority of people who post to this blog to be bright, thoughtful, and sincere in their general goodwill. I am sorry that it appears that most of them will still vote for Bush in November. But I'm not actually going to apologize for that fact.

Given this Administration's tortuous relationship with language, I'm going to need something more substantial than a Post headline to qualify what was said as an apology.

Bush knows that in Arab culture an apology is seen as a sign of weakness. An Arab *never* apologizes except when admitting defeat. This is why he has been careful to not personally apologize for the soldiers' actions. But being human he feels for the humiliation of those involved and its affect on America's reputation.

Bush tried to express these feelings in a usual clumsy way, and now the media is jumping all over him for it.

Gideon/Tim-

Exactly what do you want him to say?

If I owned a pizza delivery service and one of my drivers caused an accident, should I apologize for causing the accident?

Nope- I would say what Bush said- "I'm sorry that this happened to you. I'll try to make it right and make sure it never happens again."

Any apology that does not include the phrase "...and shall resign the Presidency effective midnight..." or words to that effect is unlikely to be accepted by the fringies. The reset will quibble over the delivery, etc.

And the world will continue on apace...

JayH:

There's a difference between my formulation ("I'm sorry you have cancer") and yours ("I'm sorry my kid hit you; I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again"). In yours, there is a tacit admission of at least the possibility that you have some responsibility for this - if you can prevent it now, maybe you could have prevented it before. In mine, I'm merely expressing sympathy for someone.

Again, given how skeezy this Administration has been with language (nearly Clintonian), I think Bush should make clear which of two formulations his "I'm sorry" is.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/05/06/loc_moment06.html

"In yours, there is a tacit admission of at least the possibility that you have some responsibility for this - if you can prevent it now, maybe you could have prevented it before."

Maybe that's because Bush and Rumsfeld don't bear any responsibility for this.

"Bush and Rumsfeld don't bear any responsibility for this."

Of course not, Audiophile. After all, Bush bears no responsibility for anything at all. Never has, never will.

You've completely missed Tim's point. If Bush can prevent this happening in the future then why didn't he prevent it in the past?

BY,

And just what makes you think that Bush can prevent this from happening in the future? I think that you have a greatly exaggerated idea of what a president can do. Here's how Bush can prevent this from happening: make public speeches, and make enough of them that the troops in Iraq actually get to hear at least one of them. Pass the word down the chain of command, but as the reprimand of BG Karpinski makes clear, just passing an order down the chain of command is not enough. He must also have people follow-up with inspection after inspection to ensure that (1) the WORD is getting through, and (2) the WORD is being followed. Down to the lowest levels. Personally, or via a trusted subordinate, because you know you can't really trust the people below you to carry out your orders.

This is what the military is facing and trying to do within a structured (military) environment. If they are having great difficulty doing it, what makes you think that the president can or should be doing it? What type of organization expects its CEO to be providing instructions to the mail room clerk? To paraphrase it, crap happens. You can't guard against any and all eventualities. The best you can do is to make your general policy and thoughts known and hope like hell that your subordinates follow through. This is true for organizations much smaller than the U.S. Government, and I think it is completely unrealistic for an organization the size of the USG. I wish it were otherwise, but 35 years of experience tells me that it is simply not possible.

Let's put this in perspective--the total size of the USG is larger than most COUNTRIES! Every ruler has total control over every citizen? Not hardly, not possible.

Sheesh.

[I]n Arab culture an apology is seen as a sign of weakness. An Arab *never* apologizes except when admitting defeat.

There is exactly zero support for this statement in the post.

Even if the statement were true (and come on, do you believe this stuff?), its real implication could be false. That implication is that Arabs are *worse* than other cultures when it comes to apologies.

So: Please show me a human culture that sees apologies as signs of *strength*.

People the world over are reluctant to offer apologies. This trait is damnably irritating, but in what way is it uniquely Arab?

Just to pick two American public figures recently mentioned on this blog: Does anyone remember Bill Clinton's non-apology apologies? Or Trent Lott's?

Arabs are no different than others in this regard. Humans in all cultures are reluctant to admit wrongdoing. And this reluctance is far from universal, as the quote above makes it out to be.

I've lived in the Arab world for 9 years. I have been apologized to plenty of times--and I wasn't "defeating" people, they were just genuinely sorry.

Do people think before they write anymore?

The number of unfounded, routinely negative generalizations about Arabs that I've encountered in the blogosphere lately makes me want to spit.

Audiophile, BY (and I guess some sort of conversational commutative law, Rex):

To be clear, I'm not saying that Bush should have apologized for the abuse. I'm saying that he (or rather, whoever scripts his words) is being willfully obscure about whether he is apologizing or not. Now I acknowledge that this has been Administration policy on Iraq since the start (I still don't know why we're there), but since people are dying, I'd like clear answers from now on. Was it an apology or not?

"The number of unfounded, routinely negative generalizations about Arabs that I've encountered in the blogosphere lately makes me want to spit."

Jim:

What are you talking about? Many of these people have seen Not Without My Daughter. Some have seen it twice. Others have watched countless episodes of "JAG." And a few have even bought a shawarma from the corner shop when in the Big City. These people are eminently qualified to comment on Arab culture.

Or is it just that you hate America?

The Arab culture is a shame-based culture. Except for Qadaffi and the Lockerbie plane bombing, I can't think of a single case where the leader of an Arab country apologized personally to the leader of a non-Muslim country for anything.

Contrast Japanese culture, where a formal personal apology by the leader (or CEO) is customary and expected.

"The Arab culture is a shame-based culture. ...
Contrast Japanese culture"

Uh Gideon? Japanese culture is also traditionally described as being shame based.

to boil things down very rapidly (and with some distortion):
Guilt - internally sourced bad feelings for having done something bad, guided by a conscience a sort of internal moral compass. Not expected to be shared by others.
Shame - externally sourced bad feelings for having been discovered doing something bad. Affects others one is associated with.

All cultures have both of these for the simple reason that all mentally healthy human beings have both (if someone is completely lacking in one or the other, it's a sign they're a sociopath).
Individuals and cultures do differ in which is the more effective threat against breaking social rules. Japan and Arab cultures are both described as shame cultures (while NAmerica is a guilt culture). But shame cultures are hardly unique, there are even some in Europe.
All in all, knowing whether more members of a given culture restrict their less seemly impulses out of guilt or shame is interesting, but doesn't tell you much about the culture as a whole.

I'll also point out that apologies can be (and are) used as highly effective offensive weapons in the right setting.

Apologize? When they apologize for dancing in the street, not before. I do not recall Americans dancing in the street when the mass graves were uncovered. No, Arabs are not just like us.

"Never apologize, Mister...it's a sign of weakness."

Too bad W hasn't seen that John Wayne movie.

JayH:

"If I owned a pizza delivery service and one of my drivers caused an accident, should I apologize for causing the accident?"

Yes, you should. And more to the point you, as the Pizza Delivery service owner, would be legally responsible for the accident. You would be the one who was sued and it would be your insurance that would pay for the victim's medical costs and damages.

Look, I wrote Bush off many, many months ago for a variety of things. Whether he says he's sorry or not now for something he may or may not have any control for does not impress me one way or the other.

I do miss the days of Trumanesqe "the-buck-stops-here" and wish our leaders would be willing to take responsibility for the good and the bad of their administration. But that philosophy is certainly not going to be adopted by this "it-wasn't-me-it-was-the-other-guy-over-there" mentality of this administration (a similar mentality to the Clinton administration...lest you all think I'm being partisan). So the fact that Bush meekly said "sorry" doesn't change my mind about him one way or the other. It certainly won't stop me from complaining about what I feel are poor decisions made by the administration (can we all say "unfunded deficit" and "constitutional amendments limiting rights"). Nor will it affect the possitive views I have of the administration which are....hmmmm....let me get back to you all on that one.

Kate, read what was said--

"If I owned a pizza delivery service and one of my drivers caused an accident, should I apologize for causing the accident?"

The operative word here is 'cause'. The Pizzeria owner, no matter, what his legal responsibilities, did noty cause tha accident--any more than Bush caused those people to abuse the prisoners. He can sympathise, and try to make things right, and, most especially, try to make sure it doesn't happen again, but he cannot apologise for the people who actually committed the act. He didn't do it.

His responsibility, as CinC, obliges him to take action, but it doesn't make him culpable for the actions of every single individual under his command. Were that true, he'd be culpable for every petty theft, every traffic ticket, every law broken anywhere by any single American.

And that's just silly.

Jack, there is no distinction.

An employer is responsible for the actions of his employee while the employee is working within the general course of the business. It makes the employer culpable for the employees actions while performing duties in connection with the employment contract.

I am responsible for any negative action taken by my employees during the course of business. It is my duty to take action to see that it does not happen again and it is my duty to make the damaged party whole. Whether that means money, or an apology, that is my job as the head of an organization.

That's regardless of whether I approved it or knew it was happening. It is MY responsibility and it is my duty to make sure things like that don't happen as a leader, a CEO, or a political mucky-muck.

That is why a corporation is responsible when there is a claim of sexual harassment. As a leader it is your job to know. If you don't, you're negligent.

I would like to point out that there is a compelling public interest for the law to be drawn this way. If this were not the case companies could hire people they knew were bad actors, indicate to the people that they could continue the bad acts (at a profit to the employeer) as long as the employeer didn't know about it. If the bad acts were later discovered, the employeer could claim they had no knowledge and absolve themselves of any responsibility.

Kate: Government is not business, and the President is no more personally responsible for what a low-level NCO does in Iraq than the head of AOLTimeWarner is responsible for someone at AOL customer service hanging up on you. (A "Corporation" is responsible when there's sexual harassment, you say. Note that you don't say "the CEO is responsible". That the military as a whole is morally "responsible" may be so; and that responsiblity is being discharged by the investigations and punishments started long before anyone outside of the services even knew this was going on.)

This question is not one of "could he be sued somehow", last I checked. Morally, I don't see any need for any more "apology" than we have now. Unless you can tell me how Bush was supposed to have had any possible clue about what was going on at that level in Iraq, I don't see how you can fairly demand more apology than has been provided. (Last I checked, after all, torture was illegal, and standing orders are to not do illegal things. If the CinC must "apologise" personally every time someone in the military does something illegal, he'll be doing nothing else. And if this is a "special case", we're back to political motivation, not moral duty. Why it is so that decrying it, apologising for the harm inflicted, and vowing to work against its recurrence is "not enough" is still not clear. Well, actually, various reasons why are clear, but as you claim not to be partisan the obvious reasons don't apply.)

This is the only apology from Bush that the media/left/liberals/democrats will ever accept...

"I'm sorry. I will immediately pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq. I will disband the army, navy, airforce and marines. I will immediately raise taxes for the rich, abolish capitalism, I will give everyone free healthcare. I apologize for being white, male, texan and republican. I admit that everyone at the NYT is correct 100% of the time. The U.N. is perfect the way it is. The current U.S. government will be disbanded and replaced by bureaucrats from Brussels. Except the democrats. They will be made lord high rulers of everything and decide how the money should be spent. All private property will be abolished."

"Apologize? When they apologize for dancing in the street, not before. I do not recall Americans dancing in the street when the mass graves were uncovered. No, Arabs are not just like us."

Oh please. I was in college during Gulf War I, and as I recall, some people on campus got kegs and rented a big screen for the start of that war. They had a "War Party."

Yeah, I went. Everything seems less stupid when you're 20.

So, Tim, have you apologized to the Iraqis for going to that "War Party", yet?

Are you kidding? Hey, everything before 40 falls under "young and irresponsible" and doesn't count. I've still got a few years left in which I can (a) do coke, and (b) become an alcholic. Living in the Bush Ethical Universe(TM) RULES (although not quite as much as living in the Clinton Ethical Universe).

J, you're wrong that the media/left/liberals/democrats would be satisfied with that apology.

He'd have to also take personal responsibility for about 100 other things such as the electoral college, gun-related violence, the internal combustion engine, whaling, global warming, polution, urban sprawl, SUV's, domestic violence, AIDS, Jim Crow laws, segregation, Viet Nam, the McCarthy era, Adolf Hitler, homelessness, the embargo against Cuba, South African Aparthied, British colonialism, the designated hitter rule, people who eat meat, slavery, fur coats, the "glass ceiling", the existence of Judeo-Christian religion of any form, nuclear weapons (which would all be immediately destroyed except for a dozen or so to be trained on Isreal to force them to do whatever Arafat says), lost puppies, and the non-existence of the tooth-fairy.

To name a few.

A business had better not apologize for a screwup.
An apology indicates the assumption of responsibility and a lawyer will eat you alive.
Cultures differ, said Thomas Sowell, and differences have consequences.
Unless you want to say that the Arab culture is exactly like ours, it's different. In what way?
Is it required for purposes of this discussion that it not be different in how it evaluates apologies?
Why can't it be different in how it evaluates apologies?
I'd like to see the Arabs apologize for one or two things I could think of before I got too excited about what Bush said or didn't say.
Besides, the nation's real enemies are salivating for Bush to admit a mistake, which the apology they demand would do. They are not going to accept it in good faith. Instead, the dems will use it as a campaigning tool.

If I owned a pizza delivery service and one of my drivers caused an accident, should I apologize for causing the accident?

If the driver caused an accident because he was speeding in an attempt to comply with your 30-minutes-or-it's-free policy, absolutely. See here. The analogy should be apparent.

1) Bush didn't really apologize. He expressed empathy for suffering, not regret for his own failures. "I'm sorry" can mean either, but only the latter is an apology.

2) This abuse is in fact, Bush's fault, in the sense that there is a management failure here, and not simply a few rogues operating on their own. The evidience that we have is already sufficient to make it clear that the abusers were doing what they had been told to do. What they had been taught to do.

The evidence further shows that all of this took place well before the current insurgency began, as well as before the brutal murder and defilement of those 4 contractors. This abuse took place at approximately the point in time (last fall) when things looked the brightest for success in Iraq. Given the current tension, the idea of angry soldiers acting out makes sense, but at the time this happened, it doesn't.

Not to mention that rogue soldiers would never have thought of this very sexual sort of abuse and acted on it on their own. These kinds of acts of degradation are the work of knowledgable professionals, not rogues.

Which means that this was deliberate. It was ordered. And either Bush knew and is culpable; or the people who report to Bush knew, and he's just as culpable because he still (aparently) has confidence in them.

Sure, some Jiggadeer Brineral somewhere cranked up the mimeograph machine to issue "Orders of the day". "You will strip prisoners naked, put a dog collar on them and pose with them on the floor on a leash."

Oh, sure.

"Time will tell whether his critics accept it."

This is strange.

Why is it up to his critics rather than the victims of the abuse to accept or reject the apology? I'm a critic of the President, but the apology was not directed towards me, and I have no authority to accept or reject it.

That said, I think the President owes an apology to the American people as well, for permitting behavior which has brought disgrace to the country. And don't kid yourself - he bears responsibility.

Not to mention that rogue soldiers would never have thought of this very sexual sort of abuse and acted on it on their own.

Read: Soldiers are too stupid to contemplate and engage in an a crude frathouse prank (entirely inappropriate and censurable, I think that part is agreed upon here) when their perception of need dictates.

Is that what you were actually saying, or do I still have water in my ear from the shower I took earlier today?

These kinds of acts of degradation are the work of knowledgable professionals, not rogues.

No, knowledgable professionals feed their enemies into plastic shredders and follow up the sexual humiliation phase with extremely painful sexual abuse or mutilation. Those sorts of actions were official policy for a ccertain regime that was just removed in the same region.

Which means that this was deliberate. It was ordered. And either Bush knew and is culpable; or the people who report to Bush knew, and he's just as culpable because he still (aparently) has confidence in them.

All it means is that you have a penchant for false arguments, a very active imagination for generating them, and only a very thin string yet leashing it to reality.

That said, I think the President owes an apology to the American people as well,

Disagree, but that's at least an arguable point.

for permitting

Whoa! You have evidence that he "permitted" it? Stop the presses...or the exageration, as the case may be.

behavior which has brought disgrace to the country.

Granted. 'How much' remains an arguable point however.

And don't kid yourself - he bears responsibility.

Q.E.D. on the latter point, and until then, the former is an empty plattitude.

Comments are Closed.