A short post as I prepare to get out of town for the Holidays...and a Merry Christmas to all.
The pot is coming to a boil on several fronts. The President might want to reconsider his holiday trip to Crawford...but there is little chance of that.
Iran's President continues to say nasty things about the West, although his power and influence seems to have taken a downturn in recent Iranian local elections. Iranian moderates seem to be gaining strength (again). Since, I am of the opinion that the ruling clerics tend to "approve" elections before the event, this may be a new political turning point.
Apparently, however, the U.S. Administration is not of the same inclination. In response to not getting our way at the UN or with our European partners on sanctions, we are sending a second carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf. Not sure what that really gains us, unless there is an unknown increased threat in the region. Military experts (the talking heads) seem to be of the opinion that air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites would not be successful due to their dispersion and lack of intelligence. So, the additional carrier battle group seems to do little more than provide an additional target for Iranian shore-to-ship missiles.
Curious...we won't open direct talks with them...but we'll pressure them with military force when everybody on earth understands we don't have sufficient force to make any difference? Pat Buchanan suggested that when Congress returns, the first order of business should be a resolution specifically forbidding the President from launching a war on Iran. That's something, coming from Buchanan...so I conclude there is genuine concern in Washington circles that we may attack Iran.
Hmmm? Wonder if all the discussion between Bush and his Generals is over this possibility and NOT what to do in Iraq?
An unprovoked attack on Iran...limited or otherwise, at this stage, would seem to me to lead to impeachment...and a sort of confirmation in my mind that this whole mid-east business is about Israel and Oil and not democracy and non-proliferation.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Thoughts on Iran
I've just begun to pay more attention to the "Iranian Problem," so the thoughts herein are based on my presently sketchy understanding of its history and the present situation. So, with that caveat, here goes.
Iran was, of course, historically the Persian Empire; one of the great Empires of human civilization. And, although Islamic (primarily Shites), Iranians are not Arabs and possess a long history of civilization prior to the inception of Islam. I think this history is important and it is useful to present U.S. foreign policy goals to bear this distinction in mind. In other words, Iranians are very conscious of a history prior to Mohammad.
Jumping across several thousand years of that history, Iran was in a sense also the birthplace of the Post World War II Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States emerged from WWII as the "conscious" replacement of the former European colonial powers. From a purely economical perspective, colonialism was generally a failure...to both the occupying Europeans, wherein colonies were somewhat of a status symbol, and the subjected peoples. I believe it was FDR's belief that the United States offered a "third way," beneficial to both the developed world and the former colonial world. We were, I believe, to be the "middle road" in the post war world between the former colonial powers and international communism, at that time represented by the Soviet Union.
The Russians, whose motivations ultimately proved to be more nationalistic than ideological, never left the areas it "freed" from Nazi Germany. The Yalta Conference, toward the end of the war, was not so much a "sell out" as the failure to more precisely define and agree on a post-war world. The Red Army occupied Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was not going to allow western democratic governments to emerge, no more than we would allow a radical Islamic cleric to assume control of Iraq today.
During the closing days of the war, the Russians sent the Red Army into northern Iran. At the end of the war, they began propagandizing for a post war communist government, while their tanks in northern Iran stayed in place, contrary to wartime joint planning. After a period of tension, which included additional threats and manoeuvring by both sides (including the famous Churchill "Iron Curtain" speech), they withdrew militarily, perhaps figuring what they could not win through force, they could win through subterfuge. A democratic election of sorts was eventually held and a Pro-Soviet government elected.
It is generally accepted today that the CIA intervened at this point. The elected Iranian leader was murdered and the Shah came to power.
It is important to have some understanding of what "communism" meant in the post-war era. It's success during this period was prior to the emergence of its obvious failures and it was perceived by many former "colonial subjects" from those in the Middle East to China, as "the wave of the future." Perhaps, had Roosevelt lived the Cold War would have turned out differently (not that the Russians would have taken a different course, but in the sense that had Lincoln lived Reconstruction in the South may have been more successful). I believe Roosevelt understood that the power and influence with which we emerged from the war could be used to present this "Third Way" of democratic-capitalism, that was neither old world colonialism or communism. Harry Truman, however, had traits similar to George Bush...things tended to be either "black or white." And, while I think Truman took the correct course of containment against the Soviets, we may have missed the opportunity to win the battle of propaganda in the Third World.
As a result, we have been and still are today largely identified in this Third World has the inheritors of western colonialism. There is some truth to this perception, but this isn't the purpose of this blog. The point is that when the Shah was finally overthrown by fundamentalist Islamics, which was for the most part a genuinely popular rebellion, we were already "the bad guys." The storming of our embassy and the imprisonment of its staff followed.
Reagan set the course of Iranian-U.S. relations in a promising direction. I do not remember the details of how he secured the embassy staff's release, but suspect it was indirectly related to his subsequent withdrawal from Lebanon following the attack on our Marines - as opposed to reinforcing them. And, of course, there was the Iran-Contra affair.
In Iran, between Reagan and now, moderation did in fact grow. The current Iranian political system is not unlike the Politburo of the Soviet Union. There are democratic elections held, but the candidates offerred are essentially chosen by a "committee" of religious clerics. If a "moderate" is elected as head of the Iranian government, it is a strong indication that the ruling clerics have approved his policies. Likewise if a fanatic is "elected."
At the time of 9/11, a generally moderate Iranian government was in power. The political milieu in Iran was toward reaching an accommodation with the west. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Iranians provided us with assistance in Afghanistan, allowing fly-over rights of military aircraft, putting us into contact with anti-Taliban forces within country, providing rescue operations for downed pilots, etc.
They were "rewarded" for these actions with the Bush "Axis of Evil" speech.
Apparently bewildered by this dubious distinction, and with the understanding that political leaders often say one thing to the "voters" and pursue another policy, following their inclusion in the axis of evil, and our invasion of Iraq, they tried again to open a dialogue with the U.S., suggesting in a letter forwarded through the Swiss that they were willing to continue to pursue a policy of moderation. This was apparently rejected by the newly empowered "neo-conservatives" who, in the post 9/11 period were running U.S. foreign policy.
It was only AFTER the axis of evil speech and the rejection of their suggested negotiations that the present Iranian radical President came to power...with the clerics blessings. THis is an extremely important possible "cause and effect," for the most part totally overlooked by our media.
I suspect that the Iranian clerics believe that they are "next" on the neo-con list. The fanatical pronouncements of the current Iranian President may be in the vein of "see...we can be just as ridiculous as you." But, of course, as his pronouncements gain favor with the "Iranian in the Street," his power vis a vie the clerics grows and there is an increasing risk that there is substance behind them.
This is not to say the Iranians have been "innocent victims." They have been, prior to 9/11 supporters of terrorist groups (although it is not likely that a Shite Iran supported Sunni Al Qaeda; most of the Arab world is Sunni).
And, we have been sending subtle signals that the days of the neo-cons running American foreign policy are over. Most have either left of their own accord, or been fired. [The post 9/11 story to be written is how they hijacked our policy in the aftermath of 9/11 and how they ultimately failed...thanks largely to the media, the American voter, bad policy and incompetence.]
One cannot however, expect a complete reversal of policy overnight. While I suspect that Condi Rice is busy explaining these intra government shifts to our traditional allies (I am not aware that she was a hard core neo-con), strains of this former policy remain. Bush has not renounced pre-emptive war, nor his mission from God to bring western democracy to the world, although his trip to Vietnam may have been another "signal" of an unstated policy shift.
In his current "policy re-evaluation," two outcomes would be beneficial: 1) a willingness to re-open Mid-East dialogues without pre-conditions and a renunciation, in some subtle manner, of pre-emptive war and regime change. As long as both of these elements remain part of official U.S. foreign policy, we cannot expect members of the "Axis of Evil" to abandon nuclear weapon ambitions.
In his broad attempt to reconcile foreign policy and domestic politics with national interests and security, he has failed and that failure does not make us any safer in the "war on terror."
However, mainly through his own post 9/11 errors, and even aside from domestic politics, he is stuck between the "rock and the hard place." On the one hand, direct talks with potential enemies would be advantageous; on the other hand it would convince allies that we are back to "going it alone." Our position on Iranian talks today largely mirrors our position with the other member of the axis of evil, North Korea. There is a consistent message being sent to our allies that we are returning to multi-lateral diplomacy...via the Six Party talks with North Korea and the EU/UN talks with Iran.
In resolving this dilemmia, Bush needs to study Roosevelt more than Truman. With domestic politics behind him, there is nothing that really prevents him from pursuing both approaches. Consistency, it is said and certainly FDR understood this, is the "hobgoblin of little minds." In my opinion, he could open direct talks through the medium of multi-lateral negotiations, with the understanding that agreements reached through direct talks would require the approval of the others involved in the multi-lateral talks.
Admitting that neo-cons hi-jacked our foreign policy is a more difficult task. PErhaps the best he could do in this area, short of my suggested "Pray at the Lincoln Memorial for forgiveness," is simply to state in his forthcoming speech on Iraq that after his review of the situation he has found errors in BOTH tactics and strategy and that he is seeking to correct both. Then, stop talking about his "mission from God," emphasis the differences in the Islamic world, and explain "pre-emptive war" not as policy, but soley in the sense of "last ditch defense." In other words, he can admit the Iraq failure (of policy) without saying as much and taking a new direction. In a sense, even if the "mission was wrong," it has been accomplished. There are no WMD in Iraq and we have secured regime change. The rest, he must emphasis, is up to the Iraqi people. Remaining in Iraq in force requires two elements: 1) the continued desire of the Iraqi people to have us there and 2) our desire to remain there. The latter should be based on our preception of genuine progress toward a reasonably stable democracy, which as a minimum ensures the basic rights of the minority...period.
As a final "aside," I regretably believe that such a stance will only provide a "way out." As noted in my comments re. the Iraq Study Group, I believe it may be "too late." Too much damage has already been done and the only long term solution may be through another form of containment for fundamentalist Islam (with the exception of genuine attacks such as the Al Qaaeda attack on 9/11; Bin Laden remains at large...which is perhaps the single greatest proof of current policy failure).
More in a following post over the next few days.
Iran was, of course, historically the Persian Empire; one of the great Empires of human civilization. And, although Islamic (primarily Shites), Iranians are not Arabs and possess a long history of civilization prior to the inception of Islam. I think this history is important and it is useful to present U.S. foreign policy goals to bear this distinction in mind. In other words, Iranians are very conscious of a history prior to Mohammad.
Jumping across several thousand years of that history, Iran was in a sense also the birthplace of the Post World War II Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States emerged from WWII as the "conscious" replacement of the former European colonial powers. From a purely economical perspective, colonialism was generally a failure...to both the occupying Europeans, wherein colonies were somewhat of a status symbol, and the subjected peoples. I believe it was FDR's belief that the United States offered a "third way," beneficial to both the developed world and the former colonial world. We were, I believe, to be the "middle road" in the post war world between the former colonial powers and international communism, at that time represented by the Soviet Union.
The Russians, whose motivations ultimately proved to be more nationalistic than ideological, never left the areas it "freed" from Nazi Germany. The Yalta Conference, toward the end of the war, was not so much a "sell out" as the failure to more precisely define and agree on a post-war world. The Red Army occupied Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was not going to allow western democratic governments to emerge, no more than we would allow a radical Islamic cleric to assume control of Iraq today.
During the closing days of the war, the Russians sent the Red Army into northern Iran. At the end of the war, they began propagandizing for a post war communist government, while their tanks in northern Iran stayed in place, contrary to wartime joint planning. After a period of tension, which included additional threats and manoeuvring by both sides (including the famous Churchill "Iron Curtain" speech), they withdrew militarily, perhaps figuring what they could not win through force, they could win through subterfuge. A democratic election of sorts was eventually held and a Pro-Soviet government elected.
It is generally accepted today that the CIA intervened at this point. The elected Iranian leader was murdered and the Shah came to power.
It is important to have some understanding of what "communism" meant in the post-war era. It's success during this period was prior to the emergence of its obvious failures and it was perceived by many former "colonial subjects" from those in the Middle East to China, as "the wave of the future." Perhaps, had Roosevelt lived the Cold War would have turned out differently (not that the Russians would have taken a different course, but in the sense that had Lincoln lived Reconstruction in the South may have been more successful). I believe Roosevelt understood that the power and influence with which we emerged from the war could be used to present this "Third Way" of democratic-capitalism, that was neither old world colonialism or communism. Harry Truman, however, had traits similar to George Bush...things tended to be either "black or white." And, while I think Truman took the correct course of containment against the Soviets, we may have missed the opportunity to win the battle of propaganda in the Third World.
As a result, we have been and still are today largely identified in this Third World has the inheritors of western colonialism. There is some truth to this perception, but this isn't the purpose of this blog. The point is that when the Shah was finally overthrown by fundamentalist Islamics, which was for the most part a genuinely popular rebellion, we were already "the bad guys." The storming of our embassy and the imprisonment of its staff followed.
Reagan set the course of Iranian-U.S. relations in a promising direction. I do not remember the details of how he secured the embassy staff's release, but suspect it was indirectly related to his subsequent withdrawal from Lebanon following the attack on our Marines - as opposed to reinforcing them. And, of course, there was the Iran-Contra affair.
In Iran, between Reagan and now, moderation did in fact grow. The current Iranian political system is not unlike the Politburo of the Soviet Union. There are democratic elections held, but the candidates offerred are essentially chosen by a "committee" of religious clerics. If a "moderate" is elected as head of the Iranian government, it is a strong indication that the ruling clerics have approved his policies. Likewise if a fanatic is "elected."
At the time of 9/11, a generally moderate Iranian government was in power. The political milieu in Iran was toward reaching an accommodation with the west. In the aftermath of 9/11, the Iranians provided us with assistance in Afghanistan, allowing fly-over rights of military aircraft, putting us into contact with anti-Taliban forces within country, providing rescue operations for downed pilots, etc.
They were "rewarded" for these actions with the Bush "Axis of Evil" speech.
Apparently bewildered by this dubious distinction, and with the understanding that political leaders often say one thing to the "voters" and pursue another policy, following their inclusion in the axis of evil, and our invasion of Iraq, they tried again to open a dialogue with the U.S., suggesting in a letter forwarded through the Swiss that they were willing to continue to pursue a policy of moderation. This was apparently rejected by the newly empowered "neo-conservatives" who, in the post 9/11 period were running U.S. foreign policy.
It was only AFTER the axis of evil speech and the rejection of their suggested negotiations that the present Iranian radical President came to power...with the clerics blessings. THis is an extremely important possible "cause and effect," for the most part totally overlooked by our media.
I suspect that the Iranian clerics believe that they are "next" on the neo-con list. The fanatical pronouncements of the current Iranian President may be in the vein of "see...we can be just as ridiculous as you." But, of course, as his pronouncements gain favor with the "Iranian in the Street," his power vis a vie the clerics grows and there is an increasing risk that there is substance behind them.
This is not to say the Iranians have been "innocent victims." They have been, prior to 9/11 supporters of terrorist groups (although it is not likely that a Shite Iran supported Sunni Al Qaeda; most of the Arab world is Sunni).
And, we have been sending subtle signals that the days of the neo-cons running American foreign policy are over. Most have either left of their own accord, or been fired. [The post 9/11 story to be written is how they hijacked our policy in the aftermath of 9/11 and how they ultimately failed...thanks largely to the media, the American voter, bad policy and incompetence.]
One cannot however, expect a complete reversal of policy overnight. While I suspect that Condi Rice is busy explaining these intra government shifts to our traditional allies (I am not aware that she was a hard core neo-con), strains of this former policy remain. Bush has not renounced pre-emptive war, nor his mission from God to bring western democracy to the world, although his trip to Vietnam may have been another "signal" of an unstated policy shift.
In his current "policy re-evaluation," two outcomes would be beneficial: 1) a willingness to re-open Mid-East dialogues without pre-conditions and a renunciation, in some subtle manner, of pre-emptive war and regime change. As long as both of these elements remain part of official U.S. foreign policy, we cannot expect members of the "Axis of Evil" to abandon nuclear weapon ambitions.
In his broad attempt to reconcile foreign policy and domestic politics with national interests and security, he has failed and that failure does not make us any safer in the "war on terror."
However, mainly through his own post 9/11 errors, and even aside from domestic politics, he is stuck between the "rock and the hard place." On the one hand, direct talks with potential enemies would be advantageous; on the other hand it would convince allies that we are back to "going it alone." Our position on Iranian talks today largely mirrors our position with the other member of the axis of evil, North Korea. There is a consistent message being sent to our allies that we are returning to multi-lateral diplomacy...via the Six Party talks with North Korea and the EU/UN talks with Iran.
In resolving this dilemmia, Bush needs to study Roosevelt more than Truman. With domestic politics behind him, there is nothing that really prevents him from pursuing both approaches. Consistency, it is said and certainly FDR understood this, is the "hobgoblin of little minds." In my opinion, he could open direct talks through the medium of multi-lateral negotiations, with the understanding that agreements reached through direct talks would require the approval of the others involved in the multi-lateral talks.
Admitting that neo-cons hi-jacked our foreign policy is a more difficult task. PErhaps the best he could do in this area, short of my suggested "Pray at the Lincoln Memorial for forgiveness," is simply to state in his forthcoming speech on Iraq that after his review of the situation he has found errors in BOTH tactics and strategy and that he is seeking to correct both. Then, stop talking about his "mission from God," emphasis the differences in the Islamic world, and explain "pre-emptive war" not as policy, but soley in the sense of "last ditch defense." In other words, he can admit the Iraq failure (of policy) without saying as much and taking a new direction. In a sense, even if the "mission was wrong," it has been accomplished. There are no WMD in Iraq and we have secured regime change. The rest, he must emphasis, is up to the Iraqi people. Remaining in Iraq in force requires two elements: 1) the continued desire of the Iraqi people to have us there and 2) our desire to remain there. The latter should be based on our preception of genuine progress toward a reasonably stable democracy, which as a minimum ensures the basic rights of the minority...period.
As a final "aside," I regretably believe that such a stance will only provide a "way out." As noted in my comments re. the Iraq Study Group, I believe it may be "too late." Too much damage has already been done and the only long term solution may be through another form of containment for fundamentalist Islam (with the exception of genuine attacks such as the Al Qaaeda attack on 9/11; Bin Laden remains at large...which is perhaps the single greatest proof of current policy failure).
More in a following post over the next few days.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Odds and Ends
THE SWIFT RAIDS
Hyrum, Utah in Cache Valley was one of the locations of the targeted INS raids this week. It would be interesting to know the degree of Swift's complicity and what they were paying the people arrested. I am beginning to think that the best way to combat illegal immigration is through "direct action" - i.e. boycott the employers caught. That will hurt them worse than any government imposed fine. In Swift's case, it may be premature until we learn more of the details...but I may call for that within a few days herein.
TACO BELL
A foot note to the corrupted food scandals of late. Can't remember details, but heard on C-SPAN that the FDA has reduced their food inspections from 34,000 to 13,000 over the last six years, due to budget cut-backs. Will try and confirm this with an internet search.
BUSH SPEECH DELAY
Seems like it is taking Bush longer to decide what to do next in Iraq longer than it took him to decide to invade. If the military turns out to be in as bad a shape as I think it may be, that could be "grounds" for impeachment. Unconsciencable to be giving tax breaks to the wealthy, while short-changing U.S. forces in harm's way. May not quite be "treason," but certainly should constitute a "misdomeanor."
Along same lines, listened to argument between CNN White House correspondent and Tony Snow (appropriate to call him "The Snow Man"?). Subject was the Oregon Senator who changed positions on the War...Republican Senator, who said actions in Iraq may be "criminal." First time I've heard that from any elected representative, save perhaps,John Conyers. Snow's reply was "that's ridiculous...how can anybody say it's criminal?" How about "criminal negligence?"
Bush has worked his way into a corner and is pretty much damned if he does; damned if he doesn't." The perception that drastic change is required also admits no one has been minding the store. Also, since the Administration has been fond of reminding us at every possible chance that "we're a nation at war," can't blame it all on a wayward Secretary of Defense...there is that old adage about "war being too important to be left to the generals"...and cabinet officers.
LET THEM EAT CAKE STORY
Four women (including Laura Bush) show up at White House Reception wearing same red dress...at $8,500 a copy.
MISSED OPPORTUNITY
The Gore film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Good facts and figures, but it could have had a lot more scenes with a lot more experts, less Al Gore. And, we could have done without the "I invented Global Warming" bit, on how he became interested, the story about his boy's accident, his loss in Florida in 2000, etc. So, although the film delivered "basically" a good, solid message, one of the "Inconvenient Truths" is that Gore is obviously running for President again in 2008. He would have made the same point without all of the Gore ego stuff.
PBS STORY ON INCOME INCREASES
Over last six years, income for 90% of households rose 2% (i.e. not quite keeping up with inflation). For top 1%, it increased 57%. For top 0.1% it increased 112%...hence creating a market for $8,500 dresses. Am thinking that we now need another Jefferson, who greeted foreign ambassadors in his PJs.
Republicans have two years to end the war in Iraq and convince American voters that they care for more than tax cuts for the wealthy. Otherwise, things are going to be worse in 2008 than they were in 2006. Might help them if they could get Bush to walk, shirtless from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, flaying his back with branches and praying for forgiveness and fasting for three days at the feet of the Great Emancipator. Hmmmm? Might get his approval rating back above 30%.
Hyrum, Utah in Cache Valley was one of the locations of the targeted INS raids this week. It would be interesting to know the degree of Swift's complicity and what they were paying the people arrested. I am beginning to think that the best way to combat illegal immigration is through "direct action" - i.e. boycott the employers caught. That will hurt them worse than any government imposed fine. In Swift's case, it may be premature until we learn more of the details...but I may call for that within a few days herein.
TACO BELL
A foot note to the corrupted food scandals of late. Can't remember details, but heard on C-SPAN that the FDA has reduced their food inspections from 34,000 to 13,000 over the last six years, due to budget cut-backs. Will try and confirm this with an internet search.
BUSH SPEECH DELAY
Seems like it is taking Bush longer to decide what to do next in Iraq longer than it took him to decide to invade. If the military turns out to be in as bad a shape as I think it may be, that could be "grounds" for impeachment. Unconsciencable to be giving tax breaks to the wealthy, while short-changing U.S. forces in harm's way. May not quite be "treason," but certainly should constitute a "misdomeanor."
Along same lines, listened to argument between CNN White House correspondent and Tony Snow (appropriate to call him "The Snow Man"?). Subject was the Oregon Senator who changed positions on the War...Republican Senator, who said actions in Iraq may be "criminal." First time I've heard that from any elected representative, save perhaps,John Conyers. Snow's reply was "that's ridiculous...how can anybody say it's criminal?" How about "criminal negligence?"
Bush has worked his way into a corner and is pretty much damned if he does; damned if he doesn't." The perception that drastic change is required also admits no one has been minding the store. Also, since the Administration has been fond of reminding us at every possible chance that "we're a nation at war," can't blame it all on a wayward Secretary of Defense...there is that old adage about "war being too important to be left to the generals"...and cabinet officers.
LET THEM EAT CAKE STORY
Four women (including Laura Bush) show up at White House Reception wearing same red dress...at $8,500 a copy.
MISSED OPPORTUNITY
The Gore film, "An Inconvenient Truth." Good facts and figures, but it could have had a lot more scenes with a lot more experts, less Al Gore. And, we could have done without the "I invented Global Warming" bit, on how he became interested, the story about his boy's accident, his loss in Florida in 2000, etc. So, although the film delivered "basically" a good, solid message, one of the "Inconvenient Truths" is that Gore is obviously running for President again in 2008. He would have made the same point without all of the Gore ego stuff.
PBS STORY ON INCOME INCREASES
Over last six years, income for 90% of households rose 2% (i.e. not quite keeping up with inflation). For top 1%, it increased 57%. For top 0.1% it increased 112%...hence creating a market for $8,500 dresses. Am thinking that we now need another Jefferson, who greeted foreign ambassadors in his PJs.
Republicans have two years to end the war in Iraq and convince American voters that they care for more than tax cuts for the wealthy. Otherwise, things are going to be worse in 2008 than they were in 2006. Might help them if they could get Bush to walk, shirtless from the White House to the Lincoln Memorial, flaying his back with branches and praying for forgiveness and fasting for three days at the feet of the Great Emancipator. Hmmmm? Might get his approval rating back above 30%.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
More on the ISG Report
On the day following the Report's release, things don't look good for either Bush or Congress' acceptance of its provisions...largely due to the very aspect the Group warned against...partisan politics.
One event may serve as an example. I listened this morning to an MSNBC report regarding the Group's Co-Chairman's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator McCain was skeptical, implying the Report called for withdrawal of combat forces, when he has been calling for increases. Baker spoke up and noted to McCain that that was not what the report called for; in fact it suggested an increase in the U.S. forces in Baghdad by some 20,000, if that is what the commander's on the ground requested. This is virtually the "exact" policy McCain has been endorsing. But apparently, neither McCain or the MSNBC reporter had read the report, for the reporter concluded that McCain was upset with the report "because it called for the removal of all combat forces."
Thus, "politics" and the media penchant to encourage polarization of all issues, for the sake of entertainment, if not national security, takes apparent precedence over the substance of the report itself.
The report, on this point, says both. It foresees a temporary increase in U.S. force levels to restore stability in Baghdad, thus LEADING to a responsible withdrawal of most combat forces in the Spring of 2008. It does not mandate this withdrawal, but qualifies such on two counts: 1) the usual "conditions on the ground," and 2) the necessary forces that would be required to protect the thousands of U.S. forces who would be involved in training the Iraq Army and who would remain as long as necessary. There is no time table or withdrawal date for ALL forces. McCain and MSNBC have misinterpreted the report.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the President was having his own communication problems with his friend Tony Blair. Their joint press conference reminded me of two friends trying to "tip toe" around their disagreements for fear of offending one another. [Prediction: UK forces in Iraq will be gone within six months of Blair's own departure from UK government...probably by the end of 2007...coupled with the Pole and Italian withdrawals...we'll be down to just about Bush and Barney...and maybe six or seven Latvians and Estonians, plus Dick.]
The message thus far is clear (although its a bit early for final judgment). The President does not see his actions (or lack thereof) in Iraq as part of a failed policy; rather, he sees them as a failure of initial intelligence and subsequent competence in execution.
It's time for someone other than God or Richard Cheney to whisper in his ear. "Unless, Mr. President, you want to restore the draft, triple the defense budget and raise taxes, the country does not want you pursuing a confrontational course around the world in pursuit of turning it into a reflection of American democracy."
One of the major problems of the President is that he seems incapable of putting himself in his opponent's shoes and apparently believes that being "decisive" is the same as being "right." This is the same craziness that has come out of "business literature" and more than a few business schools, for the past twenty years. You may find George Bush thinking in books such as "Reengineering the Corporation" and "If It Ain't Broke; Fix It." And, it's largely the "cult of personality" over that of substance.
I think George Bush really thinks he can "will" success in Iraq, if he is just resolute and unwavering in his course...whatever that may be. This colors everything about his Presidency, particularly his foreign policy.
The stance that "we won't talk to you unless you first do as we say," is infantile and the stance of a bully. It is also the stance of someone with far more military power than that possessed by Bush. From the beginning, I have thought the Bush rhetoric never matched his resources. And, the last three years in Iraq have only further weakened those resources. The limited number of troops and equipment we devoted to Iraq were all predicated on a short war, followed by "privatizing" as much of the aftermath as possible. Today, there are some 5,000 plus American subcontractor personnel in Iraq, employing as many as 100,000 employees (Iraqis and others), most doing tasks normally accomplished by military forces. We fought Afghanistan largely by proxy (the Northern Alliance) and with private contractors. Indeed, treatment of the military has basically followed the same direction as the Administration's approach to the rest of federal government...privatize as much as possible.
In nation-building, which is essentially what Bush is advocating, all of the military technology in the world will not substitute for boots on the ground. You can't build schools and hospitals or protect neighborhoods from insurgents with "smart bombs." Privatization isn't effective because it introduces the "doing good for profit" motive and potential corruption on a major scale. If you scratch the surface, this Administration generally equates "patriotism with profit."
Our ability to remain a "super-power" with a downsized military, based on high tech, rests fundamentally on one factor, in cases of potential large scale conflicts, we possess effective tactical nuclear weapons and have never renounced our use of them.
Without tactical nuclear weapons, the North Korean Army could probably overrun the 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops and South Korean Army in a matter of days. Without tactical nuclear weapons, our 145,000 troops in Iraq, next door to the hostile Iranians, would be in an untenable situation.
So, for a moment, let's put ourselves in our enemy's shoes (or play devil's advocate). Our possession of sophisticated tactical nuclear weapons and an understanding that, if necessary, they would be used, is what allows the Bush Administration to pursue an aggressive and military-oriented foreign policy. And, the "Axis of Evil" knows it. From their perspective that is as good as any reason for them to reject the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Only, by developing a nuclear weapon capability of their own do they ensure their own sovereignty against a potential U.S. attack. Given that the Bush Administration is openly pursuing a "crusade against tyrants and evil doers," which includes pre-emptive war, what would you as a tyrant and evil doer do? Build nuclear weapons.
That we went into Iraq supposedly based on the threat of "imminent attack" (which, incidentally, NO ONE outside of a handful within the Administration believed was imminent) and that intelligence has subsequently been shown to have been false, undoubtedly only solidified North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions. It would not take much to convince them that the only reason we invaded Iraq was either 1) because we knew Hussein did NOT yet have nuclear weapons or 2) if it was a genuine mistake, the same could happen to them without a nuclear deterrent.
Deterrence is a concept we never hear discussed as a possible motivation for the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapon development. Yet, such deterrence was undoubtedly the case of such development in Pakistan, India and Israel, and quite possibly in China. We hear arguments such as "bargaining chip" in the case of North Korea, or an expression of nationalistic Islamic power in the case of Iran. But, nothing on deterrence.
The absence of this discussion within the United States is remarkable in that the entire Cold War with the Soviet Union was based on such deterrence. Indeed, the perception that both the Soviet Union and the United States possessed sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of the other is generally considered a prime factor, if not THE prime factor, in keeping the Cold War cold.
Looking back on American post WWII foreign policy, from the perspective of the "Axis of Evil," it would not be an unfounded conclusion that had the radical right of the Republican Party been in control of the American political system in post WWII era and in the absence of Soviet/Chinese nuclear deterrents, the United States may have well used their nuclear capability against the Soviet Union and China in various Eastern Europe and Far Eastern post war confrontations (Berlin, Hungry, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam).
And, as noted previously in this blog, the neo-cons are the descendants of the same Republican radical right who advocated the roll-back of communism in Eastern Europe and China and toyed with the idea of offering France nuclear weapon support at Dien Bin Phu, in 1954, against the Viet Minh. As long as the United States possesses a sizable nuclear weapon deterrent of its own and does not renounce its use, what possible assurances can we give "rouge states" such as Iran and North Korea that we will not use such weapons against them, whenever WE decide its necessary?
Having been branded as enemies of the United States as part of the Axis of Evil by an Administration publicly announcing a "roll-back" composed of democratic nation-building, utilizing pre-emptive war, the leaders of these states would be crazy NOT to develop nuclear weapons.
And, then, there is Israel. By the best accounts, the Israelis possess between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons. The reason they developed these weapons is obvious. They are surrounded by peoples who want to destroy them, do not recognize their existence, and have virtually indefensible borders in case of a large scale and effective ground attack. The anti-Israel posture of the Arab in the Street is largely promoted by Arab regimes who wish to sustain their own power through keeping their populations focused on the "enemy" of Israel. The entire Middle Eastern Arab world is a rather tenuous proposition barely held together by hatred of Jews and the sale of Oil.
The West vacillates between a moral commitment to Israel and the need for oil. The "idea" of Iraq as an opportunity to "crack" this stand-off through the creation of a stable, democratic state wasn't bad in itself...aside from ignoring the reality of a thousand years or so of history and the inevitability of becoming, in the minds of the Arab in the Street, the Christian invaders. Regional Arab and Muslim power still revolves around hatred of Israel, even if it is for little more than "playing to the crowd." And, nationally-oriented Mullahs are going to prove infinitely more difficult to deal with than Saudi Princes, Egyptian dictators, or genocidal Saddam Hussein's. In fact, aside from the Israeli problem, they may actually want to keep more of their oil revenue rather than recirculate their petro dollars into western investments.
To sum this point, basically Western Middle East policy has been based on the following proposition toward Middle Eastern regimes: "We buy your oil, allow your regimes to exist and, in return, you don't let the anti-Israel play in the streets get out of hand and keep oil prices to a level that won't drive western economies into bankruptcy."
All of this has now been upset. Failure in Iraq wasn't the only factor, but it didn't help. We allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to fill a vacuum, one that now threatens to plunge the entire region into, at best, growing civil/religious unrest and, at worst, war.
I seriously doubt there is anything we can really do effectively against the religious fervor beginning to sweep the region. God, or Allah, knows we've done enough on that score. The trick is to provide safety for Israel and keep the oil flowing at a reasonable price, in the midst of a massive power shift that began with the downfall of the Shah and the murder of Anwar Sadat in Egypt.
Aside from 9/11, almost irrespective of 9/11, we are in the worst of environments...market wise. We are faced with Middle Eastern oil dependence in a market of declining resources and greater demand (thanks to the end of communism and globalization). [Note: I do not mean to say 9/11 was unimportant; very little could be more important. But, I do see 9/11 as a smaller scale problem, only indicative of the larger problem. As previously discussed, in my opinion, the proper response to 9/11 was the pursuit of Al Qaeda and the capture of Bin Laden, rather than the invasion of Iraq.]
I'll try and address how we might get through this transition in my next post.
One event may serve as an example. I listened this morning to an MSNBC report regarding the Group's Co-Chairman's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator McCain was skeptical, implying the Report called for withdrawal of combat forces, when he has been calling for increases. Baker spoke up and noted to McCain that that was not what the report called for; in fact it suggested an increase in the U.S. forces in Baghdad by some 20,000, if that is what the commander's on the ground requested. This is virtually the "exact" policy McCain has been endorsing. But apparently, neither McCain or the MSNBC reporter had read the report, for the reporter concluded that McCain was upset with the report "because it called for the removal of all combat forces."
Thus, "politics" and the media penchant to encourage polarization of all issues, for the sake of entertainment, if not national security, takes apparent precedence over the substance of the report itself.
The report, on this point, says both. It foresees a temporary increase in U.S. force levels to restore stability in Baghdad, thus LEADING to a responsible withdrawal of most combat forces in the Spring of 2008. It does not mandate this withdrawal, but qualifies such on two counts: 1) the usual "conditions on the ground," and 2) the necessary forces that would be required to protect the thousands of U.S. forces who would be involved in training the Iraq Army and who would remain as long as necessary. There is no time table or withdrawal date for ALL forces. McCain and MSNBC have misinterpreted the report.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the President was having his own communication problems with his friend Tony Blair. Their joint press conference reminded me of two friends trying to "tip toe" around their disagreements for fear of offending one another. [Prediction: UK forces in Iraq will be gone within six months of Blair's own departure from UK government...probably by the end of 2007...coupled with the Pole and Italian withdrawals...we'll be down to just about Bush and Barney...and maybe six or seven Latvians and Estonians, plus Dick.]
The message thus far is clear (although its a bit early for final judgment). The President does not see his actions (or lack thereof) in Iraq as part of a failed policy; rather, he sees them as a failure of initial intelligence and subsequent competence in execution.
It's time for someone other than God or Richard Cheney to whisper in his ear. "Unless, Mr. President, you want to restore the draft, triple the defense budget and raise taxes, the country does not want you pursuing a confrontational course around the world in pursuit of turning it into a reflection of American democracy."
One of the major problems of the President is that he seems incapable of putting himself in his opponent's shoes and apparently believes that being "decisive" is the same as being "right." This is the same craziness that has come out of "business literature" and more than a few business schools, for the past twenty years. You may find George Bush thinking in books such as "Reengineering the Corporation" and "If It Ain't Broke; Fix It." And, it's largely the "cult of personality" over that of substance.
I think George Bush really thinks he can "will" success in Iraq, if he is just resolute and unwavering in his course...whatever that may be. This colors everything about his Presidency, particularly his foreign policy.
The stance that "we won't talk to you unless you first do as we say," is infantile and the stance of a bully. It is also the stance of someone with far more military power than that possessed by Bush. From the beginning, I have thought the Bush rhetoric never matched his resources. And, the last three years in Iraq have only further weakened those resources. The limited number of troops and equipment we devoted to Iraq were all predicated on a short war, followed by "privatizing" as much of the aftermath as possible. Today, there are some 5,000 plus American subcontractor personnel in Iraq, employing as many as 100,000 employees (Iraqis and others), most doing tasks normally accomplished by military forces. We fought Afghanistan largely by proxy (the Northern Alliance) and with private contractors. Indeed, treatment of the military has basically followed the same direction as the Administration's approach to the rest of federal government...privatize as much as possible.
In nation-building, which is essentially what Bush is advocating, all of the military technology in the world will not substitute for boots on the ground. You can't build schools and hospitals or protect neighborhoods from insurgents with "smart bombs." Privatization isn't effective because it introduces the "doing good for profit" motive and potential corruption on a major scale. If you scratch the surface, this Administration generally equates "patriotism with profit."
Our ability to remain a "super-power" with a downsized military, based on high tech, rests fundamentally on one factor, in cases of potential large scale conflicts, we possess effective tactical nuclear weapons and have never renounced our use of them.
Without tactical nuclear weapons, the North Korean Army could probably overrun the 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops and South Korean Army in a matter of days. Without tactical nuclear weapons, our 145,000 troops in Iraq, next door to the hostile Iranians, would be in an untenable situation.
So, for a moment, let's put ourselves in our enemy's shoes (or play devil's advocate). Our possession of sophisticated tactical nuclear weapons and an understanding that, if necessary, they would be used, is what allows the Bush Administration to pursue an aggressive and military-oriented foreign policy. And, the "Axis of Evil" knows it. From their perspective that is as good as any reason for them to reject the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Only, by developing a nuclear weapon capability of their own do they ensure their own sovereignty against a potential U.S. attack. Given that the Bush Administration is openly pursuing a "crusade against tyrants and evil doers," which includes pre-emptive war, what would you as a tyrant and evil doer do? Build nuclear weapons.
That we went into Iraq supposedly based on the threat of "imminent attack" (which, incidentally, NO ONE outside of a handful within the Administration believed was imminent) and that intelligence has subsequently been shown to have been false, undoubtedly only solidified North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions. It would not take much to convince them that the only reason we invaded Iraq was either 1) because we knew Hussein did NOT yet have nuclear weapons or 2) if it was a genuine mistake, the same could happen to them without a nuclear deterrent.
Deterrence is a concept we never hear discussed as a possible motivation for the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapon development. Yet, such deterrence was undoubtedly the case of such development in Pakistan, India and Israel, and quite possibly in China. We hear arguments such as "bargaining chip" in the case of North Korea, or an expression of nationalistic Islamic power in the case of Iran. But, nothing on deterrence.
The absence of this discussion within the United States is remarkable in that the entire Cold War with the Soviet Union was based on such deterrence. Indeed, the perception that both the Soviet Union and the United States possessed sufficient nuclear weapons to ensure the destruction of the other is generally considered a prime factor, if not THE prime factor, in keeping the Cold War cold.
Looking back on American post WWII foreign policy, from the perspective of the "Axis of Evil," it would not be an unfounded conclusion that had the radical right of the Republican Party been in control of the American political system in post WWII era and in the absence of Soviet/Chinese nuclear deterrents, the United States may have well used their nuclear capability against the Soviet Union and China in various Eastern Europe and Far Eastern post war confrontations (Berlin, Hungry, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam).
And, as noted previously in this blog, the neo-cons are the descendants of the same Republican radical right who advocated the roll-back of communism in Eastern Europe and China and toyed with the idea of offering France nuclear weapon support at Dien Bin Phu, in 1954, against the Viet Minh. As long as the United States possesses a sizable nuclear weapon deterrent of its own and does not renounce its use, what possible assurances can we give "rouge states" such as Iran and North Korea that we will not use such weapons against them, whenever WE decide its necessary?
Having been branded as enemies of the United States as part of the Axis of Evil by an Administration publicly announcing a "roll-back" composed of democratic nation-building, utilizing pre-emptive war, the leaders of these states would be crazy NOT to develop nuclear weapons.
And, then, there is Israel. By the best accounts, the Israelis possess between 200 and 300 nuclear weapons. The reason they developed these weapons is obvious. They are surrounded by peoples who want to destroy them, do not recognize their existence, and have virtually indefensible borders in case of a large scale and effective ground attack. The anti-Israel posture of the Arab in the Street is largely promoted by Arab regimes who wish to sustain their own power through keeping their populations focused on the "enemy" of Israel. The entire Middle Eastern Arab world is a rather tenuous proposition barely held together by hatred of Jews and the sale of Oil.
The West vacillates between a moral commitment to Israel and the need for oil. The "idea" of Iraq as an opportunity to "crack" this stand-off through the creation of a stable, democratic state wasn't bad in itself...aside from ignoring the reality of a thousand years or so of history and the inevitability of becoming, in the minds of the Arab in the Street, the Christian invaders. Regional Arab and Muslim power still revolves around hatred of Israel, even if it is for little more than "playing to the crowd." And, nationally-oriented Mullahs are going to prove infinitely more difficult to deal with than Saudi Princes, Egyptian dictators, or genocidal Saddam Hussein's. In fact, aside from the Israeli problem, they may actually want to keep more of their oil revenue rather than recirculate their petro dollars into western investments.
To sum this point, basically Western Middle East policy has been based on the following proposition toward Middle Eastern regimes: "We buy your oil, allow your regimes to exist and, in return, you don't let the anti-Israel play in the streets get out of hand and keep oil prices to a level that won't drive western economies into bankruptcy."
All of this has now been upset. Failure in Iraq wasn't the only factor, but it didn't help. We allowed the Islamic fundamentalists to fill a vacuum, one that now threatens to plunge the entire region into, at best, growing civil/religious unrest and, at worst, war.
I seriously doubt there is anything we can really do effectively against the religious fervor beginning to sweep the region. God, or Allah, knows we've done enough on that score. The trick is to provide safety for Israel and keep the oil flowing at a reasonable price, in the midst of a massive power shift that began with the downfall of the Shah and the murder of Anwar Sadat in Egypt.
Aside from 9/11, almost irrespective of 9/11, we are in the worst of environments...market wise. We are faced with Middle Eastern oil dependence in a market of declining resources and greater demand (thanks to the end of communism and globalization). [Note: I do not mean to say 9/11 was unimportant; very little could be more important. But, I do see 9/11 as a smaller scale problem, only indicative of the larger problem. As previously discussed, in my opinion, the proper response to 9/11 was the pursuit of Al Qaeda and the capture of Bin Laden, rather than the invasion of Iraq.]
I'll try and address how we might get through this transition in my next post.
The Iraq Study Group Report: Closing Pandora's Box
I've just finished reading about one half of the Iraq Study Group Report, which includes the Executive Summary and the Group's assessment of the present situation and problems. The remainder of the report concerns the seventy some recommendations. I'll wade through those in the next few days, but media analysis seems to have summarized the recommendations pretty well (after my own quick skim).
My first impression is that whereas my last post concerned Rumsfeld's "Too Little; Too late" memo, the Study Group's report isn't "too little," but probably "too late." It's thoughtful, reasonable and fairly comprehensive, and is the type of "post invasion plan," the country (Iraq and ours) needed three years ago. However, as things stand now, I tend to think that future policy will have to be driven not by wisdom or logic, but the unfolding events in the streets of Baghdad.
This is not to say that its recommendations should not be tried. Its a reasonable plan, with more insight than the Administration has produced in three years, with its largely vaguely goal of "staying until we win" or more recent Democratic "panic moments" that suggest withdrawing to Okinawa. But, in sum, I would give its chances for success, at this point, about the same percentage as those Americans who still support the war...30%.
So, why? Three major assumptions for success in the report are all unlikely to be achieved: a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute; some sort of regional cooperation on Iraqi stability; and the Iraqis themselves standing up for a basically secular, democratic system. None are likely, in my opinion, to be realized.
Fear is a motivation that almost instinctively "kicks-in" with the human species when its survival is threatened. Reasoned debate, civil rights, etc. do not do well in a state of fear (as Karl Rove proved in the elections of 2002 and 2004). If the American electorate was willing to turn away from these necessary prerequisites of democracy in the post 9/11 period, what makes us think the Iraqis will turn toward these prerequisites today? The more probable course is that the sectarian violence will run its course, the Sunnis will ultimately lose and that Iraq will become effectively partitioned (the Kurds in the north; the Shites in Baghdad and the south and east; the Sunnis isolated and powerless in the western province of Anbar). Perhaps, the best that may be achieved is a continuing, but extremely weak central government, kept together by an understanding by all Iraqi factions that such is preferable to a physical partition - i.e. the division of the country among its neighbors.
In the meantime, things are likely to simply continue to be brutal. One noteworthy fact in the report was that approximately 2.0 million Iraqis have already fled the country since the invasion and that many of these people (primarily Sunnis) were the backbone of the former Iraqi infrastructure. With this component of the population largely gone, Iraqi seems destined for internal chaos, religious war and the emergence of a new society of some sort over the next several generations.
The Iraq Study Group report may be more important for domestic politics than for anything it may accomplish in Iraq itself. Without pointing fingers, it chronicles the remarkable ineptitude of both policy and policy execution of the Bush Administration. Basically and very, very obviously, this is an Administration that had to be "bailed out." In 20-30 years, when the histories of this period are written, I think the general consensus will be that in the aftermath of 9/11, a "know-nothing, intellectually-challenged President," elected almost entirely on the basis of greed and fear, turned to a small radical group of neo-cons who temporarily derailed 50 some odd years of successful bi-partisan American foreign policy. And, that only their bumbling and incompetence saved us from worse.
Basically...and call it what you will, globalization, free trade, American democracy, God's Will, etc., that failed policy posed the future of the country as one of "Empire." At least, that was most of the world's perception. Afghanistan was good, old-fashioned revenge, which no one was prepared to deny us following 9/11. Iraq was aggression and Imperial ambition, which even if you agreed with it, was far, far beyond our scope and resources.
I'd like to explore all of that in future posts, but the immediate question is how will the President respond to the report? I think that he's largely been "boxed in." There are too many problems at home (foremost being homeland security) to be embarking on some "world mission." I suspect this is the consensus of "the wise men" of the Study Group, including the President's father and newly appointed Defense Secretary Gates. Rather than be driven by unreasonable White House policies and ambitions, I believe, Gates would simply resign and that resignation would be to Bush, what the firing of Archibald Cox (and the Saturday Night Massacre) was to Nixon...the beginning of impeachment.
Bush is being essentially told, "you either 'get it' or you get out."
And, broadly, in its emphasis on a return to multi-lateral diplomacy, the withdrawal of combat forces, etc. there is the underlying message of the report that neo-con influence is dead. Perhaps, that will be its greatest accomplishment...a return to sanity and a backing away from an abyss to which we came as close to as any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
My first impression is that whereas my last post concerned Rumsfeld's "Too Little; Too late" memo, the Study Group's report isn't "too little," but probably "too late." It's thoughtful, reasonable and fairly comprehensive, and is the type of "post invasion plan," the country (Iraq and ours) needed three years ago. However, as things stand now, I tend to think that future policy will have to be driven not by wisdom or logic, but the unfolding events in the streets of Baghdad.
This is not to say that its recommendations should not be tried. Its a reasonable plan, with more insight than the Administration has produced in three years, with its largely vaguely goal of "staying until we win" or more recent Democratic "panic moments" that suggest withdrawing to Okinawa. But, in sum, I would give its chances for success, at this point, about the same percentage as those Americans who still support the war...30%.
So, why? Three major assumptions for success in the report are all unlikely to be achieved: a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute; some sort of regional cooperation on Iraqi stability; and the Iraqis themselves standing up for a basically secular, democratic system. None are likely, in my opinion, to be realized.
Fear is a motivation that almost instinctively "kicks-in" with the human species when its survival is threatened. Reasoned debate, civil rights, etc. do not do well in a state of fear (as Karl Rove proved in the elections of 2002 and 2004). If the American electorate was willing to turn away from these necessary prerequisites of democracy in the post 9/11 period, what makes us think the Iraqis will turn toward these prerequisites today? The more probable course is that the sectarian violence will run its course, the Sunnis will ultimately lose and that Iraq will become effectively partitioned (the Kurds in the north; the Shites in Baghdad and the south and east; the Sunnis isolated and powerless in the western province of Anbar). Perhaps, the best that may be achieved is a continuing, but extremely weak central government, kept together by an understanding by all Iraqi factions that such is preferable to a physical partition - i.e. the division of the country among its neighbors.
In the meantime, things are likely to simply continue to be brutal. One noteworthy fact in the report was that approximately 2.0 million Iraqis have already fled the country since the invasion and that many of these people (primarily Sunnis) were the backbone of the former Iraqi infrastructure. With this component of the population largely gone, Iraqi seems destined for internal chaos, religious war and the emergence of a new society of some sort over the next several generations.
The Iraq Study Group report may be more important for domestic politics than for anything it may accomplish in Iraq itself. Without pointing fingers, it chronicles the remarkable ineptitude of both policy and policy execution of the Bush Administration. Basically and very, very obviously, this is an Administration that had to be "bailed out." In 20-30 years, when the histories of this period are written, I think the general consensus will be that in the aftermath of 9/11, a "know-nothing, intellectually-challenged President," elected almost entirely on the basis of greed and fear, turned to a small radical group of neo-cons who temporarily derailed 50 some odd years of successful bi-partisan American foreign policy. And, that only their bumbling and incompetence saved us from worse.
Basically...and call it what you will, globalization, free trade, American democracy, God's Will, etc., that failed policy posed the future of the country as one of "Empire." At least, that was most of the world's perception. Afghanistan was good, old-fashioned revenge, which no one was prepared to deny us following 9/11. Iraq was aggression and Imperial ambition, which even if you agreed with it, was far, far beyond our scope and resources.
I'd like to explore all of that in future posts, but the immediate question is how will the President respond to the report? I think that he's largely been "boxed in." There are too many problems at home (foremost being homeland security) to be embarking on some "world mission." I suspect this is the consensus of "the wise men" of the Study Group, including the President's father and newly appointed Defense Secretary Gates. Rather than be driven by unreasonable White House policies and ambitions, I believe, Gates would simply resign and that resignation would be to Bush, what the firing of Archibald Cox (and the Saturday Night Massacre) was to Nixon...the beginning of impeachment.
Bush is being essentially told, "you either 'get it' or you get out."
And, broadly, in its emphasis on a return to multi-lateral diplomacy, the withdrawal of combat forces, etc. there is the underlying message of the report that neo-con influence is dead. Perhaps, that will be its greatest accomplishment...a return to sanity and a backing away from an abyss to which we came as close to as any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
The Rumsfeld Memo: Fired for Not Staying the Course or Too Little, Too Late
The recently leaked Rumsfeld Memo, with its admission that things were not going as planned in Iraq and offering a check list of possible changes is interesting, not so much in its contents, as in who leaked it and why?
The purpose of the leak and its origin are curious. Given the fact that the Memo was written on November 6th, the election was November 7th, and the Rumsfeld departure announced on November 8th, the purpose in leaking it now seems to serve only one of three possible motivations. 1) It's a "school-boyish" attempt by Rumsfeld himself, to show: "Gee...see, I really was thinking about these things." I discount that, because as much as I believe Rumsfeld had a tendency for detachment, I've never believed he was a complete idiot.
2) The State Department leaked it to show how little attention Iraq was really getting in Washington, if not in Iraq itself, the international community, the world press, and the mind of the American voter. My first reaction, after reading it, was: "Good Grief! These guys weren't discussing these possibilities until November 6th?" However, although this might be a probable source and motivation in the Powell State Department, I don't see the Rice State Department as the source of the leak.
This leaves me with 3) the White House, with the motivation suggested in the title: Was it leaked to show that on the day before the election, Rumsfeld's second thoughts were "too little, too late," as confirmed by the election results or was it a reminder to the Baker-Hamilton Commission and the forth coming, internal Pentagon re-evaluation, that those who suggest something other than staying the course are "history."
Which of the two motivations you choose depends to some degree on how you perceive the President. There is a saying about there being no worse a fanatic than a convert. Bush was, and perhaps still is, despite some "window dressing," a convert to the neo-conservative cause in foreign policy. In this interpretation, as a convert, the President has been "unfazed" by the clamor for a policy change, and remains on the "staying the course" trajectory. After all, who are we compared to a "message from God?" Leaking the memo was to show there is no future in this Administration, or in independent commissions, for the faint at heart and it's "staying the course," or get off the boat. But this interpretation suggests that Bush is more an "ideologue" and insane than I think he is. The neo-con conversion was "real" as long as it worked and allowed him to do what he wanted to do anyhow...sort of like the CEO who brings in outside consultants to justify his own behavior. So, I am going to opt for the second, "too little, too late" motivation.
The White House leak (if that's the source) with the too little, too late motivation falls in line with an understanding of the President as essentially a spoiled rich kid, who has inherited the family store and thinks he can run it because he has an MBA from Harvard. In this mode, he operates through staff, not through public opinion polls, the media, elections or anything else that might actually sway a true politician. He assigns responsibility and depends upon that person to carry the ball; in this case, Rumsfeld.
There are two factors, in this "CEO/Chairman of the Board scenario," that lead to "firing." The first has to do with the CEO's boss, the stockholders. If the stockholders (read the American voter) determine that a change of course is necessary, it's because the person appointed responsibility for that aspect of the business didn't get the job done. So, it's a question of, in this case, firing Rumsfeld or Bush resigning as CEO. The second factor is a nuance, connected to the first - i.e. the CEO/Chairman will support the person responsible only up to the point wherein that person shows strength and resolution, without self-doubt. The Rumsfeld Memo, coming a day before the "stockholders" voted, showed "self-doubt" and was a disservice to the Board, in being "too little, too late."
I would suggest that had the election gone the way the White House wanted and the Rumsfeld Memo had not been written, the President would be staying the course, not only in Iraq, but with Rumsfeld as well. I also suspect that Mr. Bush spoke the truth some weeks prior to the election in giving Rumsfeld his support and saying to reporters that he expected Rumsfeld to remain as Secretary of Defense for the remainder of his term. In other words, he lied about the lie.
So...we have a President with mediocre intelligence and intellectual interest, put into office because of his name and slick marketing, and who otherwise would have done well to become Commissioner of Major League Baseball. This is compounded by the fact that he seems to compensate for these faults by being stubborn...staying the course, for fear of admitting error and showing his obvious weaknesses, of which he is probably painfully aware.
Were he the CEO/Chairman of a large corporation, the stockholders would by now have insisted on his removal. Had he been on the ticket in November, he would have been "fired."
At the moment, I concur with the Democratic decision not to pursue impeachment. However, that decision may change depending upon the revelations of the forth coming congressional investigations. If "war is the continuance of politics by other means," impeachment is, similarly, the continuance of politics by other means. Or, in corporate terms, think of it as buying out his contract. Democrats would be wise not to take this course unless they are assured of the votes, which at the moment they are far, far from having. But, suppose the situation in Iraq worsens. Suppose the brutal "choice" becomes either getting our current troops out safely immediately or re-establishing the draft and sending 500,000 more troops into a situation that no one believes may be resolved in our national interest for several decades, if ever. And, suppose this is coupled with a series of "scandals" regarding Iraqi oil and government contracting in Iraq. Even if the President himself is not seen as being personally involved, "incompetence" may become grounds for impeachment.
I hope this is not the course of things to come. My personal feelings and votes in 2000 and 2004 have been vindicated pretty much by events. And, although I did not support Bush Junior or the vast majority of his policies, including the Iraqi invasion, I recognize that he is my President as well as those who have supported him. And, at this point, regardless of policies, an impeachment movement would almost certainly be linked to a dramatic rise in U.S. troop casualties in Iraq; that is foremost in my mind concerning Mr. Bush's future. So, I "hope" for a different outcome, other than the one which, in my mind, seems probable. But, we must all begin asking ourselves the question of whether U.S. forces are now dying in Iraq, not because of just the wrong policy, but for the "legacy" of an elected official who simply can't admit he's been wrong. And, if I come to that conclusion, I'd impeach him tomorrow.
The purpose of the leak and its origin are curious. Given the fact that the Memo was written on November 6th, the election was November 7th, and the Rumsfeld departure announced on November 8th, the purpose in leaking it now seems to serve only one of three possible motivations. 1) It's a "school-boyish" attempt by Rumsfeld himself, to show: "Gee...see, I really was thinking about these things." I discount that, because as much as I believe Rumsfeld had a tendency for detachment, I've never believed he was a complete idiot.
2) The State Department leaked it to show how little attention Iraq was really getting in Washington, if not in Iraq itself, the international community, the world press, and the mind of the American voter. My first reaction, after reading it, was: "Good Grief! These guys weren't discussing these possibilities until November 6th?" However, although this might be a probable source and motivation in the Powell State Department, I don't see the Rice State Department as the source of the leak.
This leaves me with 3) the White House, with the motivation suggested in the title: Was it leaked to show that on the day before the election, Rumsfeld's second thoughts were "too little, too late," as confirmed by the election results or was it a reminder to the Baker-Hamilton Commission and the forth coming, internal Pentagon re-evaluation, that those who suggest something other than staying the course are "history."
Which of the two motivations you choose depends to some degree on how you perceive the President. There is a saying about there being no worse a fanatic than a convert. Bush was, and perhaps still is, despite some "window dressing," a convert to the neo-conservative cause in foreign policy. In this interpretation, as a convert, the President has been "unfazed" by the clamor for a policy change, and remains on the "staying the course" trajectory. After all, who are we compared to a "message from God?" Leaking the memo was to show there is no future in this Administration, or in independent commissions, for the faint at heart and it's "staying the course," or get off the boat. But this interpretation suggests that Bush is more an "ideologue" and insane than I think he is. The neo-con conversion was "real" as long as it worked and allowed him to do what he wanted to do anyhow...sort of like the CEO who brings in outside consultants to justify his own behavior. So, I am going to opt for the second, "too little, too late" motivation.
The White House leak (if that's the source) with the too little, too late motivation falls in line with an understanding of the President as essentially a spoiled rich kid, who has inherited the family store and thinks he can run it because he has an MBA from Harvard. In this mode, he operates through staff, not through public opinion polls, the media, elections or anything else that might actually sway a true politician. He assigns responsibility and depends upon that person to carry the ball; in this case, Rumsfeld.
There are two factors, in this "CEO/Chairman of the Board scenario," that lead to "firing." The first has to do with the CEO's boss, the stockholders. If the stockholders (read the American voter) determine that a change of course is necessary, it's because the person appointed responsibility for that aspect of the business didn't get the job done. So, it's a question of, in this case, firing Rumsfeld or Bush resigning as CEO. The second factor is a nuance, connected to the first - i.e. the CEO/Chairman will support the person responsible only up to the point wherein that person shows strength and resolution, without self-doubt. The Rumsfeld Memo, coming a day before the "stockholders" voted, showed "self-doubt" and was a disservice to the Board, in being "too little, too late."
I would suggest that had the election gone the way the White House wanted and the Rumsfeld Memo had not been written, the President would be staying the course, not only in Iraq, but with Rumsfeld as well. I also suspect that Mr. Bush spoke the truth some weeks prior to the election in giving Rumsfeld his support and saying to reporters that he expected Rumsfeld to remain as Secretary of Defense for the remainder of his term. In other words, he lied about the lie.
So...we have a President with mediocre intelligence and intellectual interest, put into office because of his name and slick marketing, and who otherwise would have done well to become Commissioner of Major League Baseball. This is compounded by the fact that he seems to compensate for these faults by being stubborn...staying the course, for fear of admitting error and showing his obvious weaknesses, of which he is probably painfully aware.
Were he the CEO/Chairman of a large corporation, the stockholders would by now have insisted on his removal. Had he been on the ticket in November, he would have been "fired."
At the moment, I concur with the Democratic decision not to pursue impeachment. However, that decision may change depending upon the revelations of the forth coming congressional investigations. If "war is the continuance of politics by other means," impeachment is, similarly, the continuance of politics by other means. Or, in corporate terms, think of it as buying out his contract. Democrats would be wise not to take this course unless they are assured of the votes, which at the moment they are far, far from having. But, suppose the situation in Iraq worsens. Suppose the brutal "choice" becomes either getting our current troops out safely immediately or re-establishing the draft and sending 500,000 more troops into a situation that no one believes may be resolved in our national interest for several decades, if ever. And, suppose this is coupled with a series of "scandals" regarding Iraqi oil and government contracting in Iraq. Even if the President himself is not seen as being personally involved, "incompetence" may become grounds for impeachment.
I hope this is not the course of things to come. My personal feelings and votes in 2000 and 2004 have been vindicated pretty much by events. And, although I did not support Bush Junior or the vast majority of his policies, including the Iraqi invasion, I recognize that he is my President as well as those who have supported him. And, at this point, regardless of policies, an impeachment movement would almost certainly be linked to a dramatic rise in U.S. troop casualties in Iraq; that is foremost in my mind concerning Mr. Bush's future. So, I "hope" for a different outcome, other than the one which, in my mind, seems probable. But, we must all begin asking ourselves the question of whether U.S. forces are now dying in Iraq, not because of just the wrong policy, but for the "legacy" of an elected official who simply can't admit he's been wrong. And, if I come to that conclusion, I'd impeach him tomorrow.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
The Bush Trip Continued and Gingrich
In a brief stop-over in Estonia during the Latvian NATO meeting, Bush trotted out the old Al Qaeda-Iraq argument, with the claim that Al Qaeda is behind the Iraqi sectarian violence now occurring. Perhaps, in Estonia, he felt he could get away with it. While I don't totally discount his argument, so much of his insight has been shown to be based on false premises, he should realize by now that he needs to show "proof" when making such charges. This is especially true, when there seems to be ample contrary evidence being noted by his "generals in the field."
The information flow in this Administration continues to be a mystery to me. Whether Iraq or Katrina, the Presidential "interpretation" seems to depart radically from factual evidence "on the ground." And, the argument, "I know things you don't," just doesn't work anymore. If that is the case, he needs to find a way of conveying his "proof" to his audiences without compromising national security.
In his apparent failure to understand the above, he simply becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Meanwhile, the "Newt" has begun to position himself for the 2008 Election and the Republican nomination for President. In a recent speech before some group celebrating the First Amendment, Newt delivered the keynote address. The main theme seems to have been that we must, given the War on Terror, be prepared to give up basic civil rights.
One commentator explained this as: "Newt's an 'idea guy.' He throws out lots of ideas; a lot bad, a few good."
I think it goes beyond that. Newt seems to be positioning himself to fill a perceived vacuum on the Republican "Right." With Giuliani on the Republican Left and McCain in the Republican Middle, the Newt is apparently catering to the Republican base on the Right.
As with Bush, I don't totally discount his point; the War on Terror, although it needs definition and more precise, attainable goals, is probably going to be with us for a long time. And, "traditional interpretations" of civil rights (particularly in the area of privacy) may need revisiting. But the manner in which this should be done, in my opinion, is through Congress and the Judiciary, not those seeking Executive power. Many Republicans, namely the current Administration, have been too quick to simply ignore basic civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror. What they seem to fail to realize (perhaps deliberately) is that civil liberties are the "base line" and that it is up to them to find ways of fighting terrorism effectively without negating these liberties. I would like to see more rational discussion on this point by organizations on the left and those in support of civil liberties, such as the ACLU. How do these people believe the war on terror can be fought without infringement on traditional rights? I suspect the answer lies in the direction of increased Congressional oversight and an expanded Judiciary, rather than the opposite...i.e. simply more Presidential power.
The information flow in this Administration continues to be a mystery to me. Whether Iraq or Katrina, the Presidential "interpretation" seems to depart radically from factual evidence "on the ground." And, the argument, "I know things you don't," just doesn't work anymore. If that is the case, he needs to find a way of conveying his "proof" to his audiences without compromising national security.
In his apparent failure to understand the above, he simply becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Meanwhile, the "Newt" has begun to position himself for the 2008 Election and the Republican nomination for President. In a recent speech before some group celebrating the First Amendment, Newt delivered the keynote address. The main theme seems to have been that we must, given the War on Terror, be prepared to give up basic civil rights.
One commentator explained this as: "Newt's an 'idea guy.' He throws out lots of ideas; a lot bad, a few good."
I think it goes beyond that. Newt seems to be positioning himself to fill a perceived vacuum on the Republican "Right." With Giuliani on the Republican Left and McCain in the Republican Middle, the Newt is apparently catering to the Republican base on the Right.
As with Bush, I don't totally discount his point; the War on Terror, although it needs definition and more precise, attainable goals, is probably going to be with us for a long time. And, "traditional interpretations" of civil rights (particularly in the area of privacy) may need revisiting. But the manner in which this should be done, in my opinion, is through Congress and the Judiciary, not those seeking Executive power. Many Republicans, namely the current Administration, have been too quick to simply ignore basic civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror. What they seem to fail to realize (perhaps deliberately) is that civil liberties are the "base line" and that it is up to them to find ways of fighting terrorism effectively without negating these liberties. I would like to see more rational discussion on this point by organizations on the left and those in support of civil liberties, such as the ACLU. How do these people believe the war on terror can be fought without infringement on traditional rights? I suspect the answer lies in the direction of increased Congressional oversight and an expanded Judiciary, rather than the opposite...i.e. simply more Presidential power.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Bush's Trip
As Democrats prepare to take control of both Congressional houses, President Bush apparently feels it best to just stay out of town.
His trip this week, after returning from Asia last week, will be to a NATO meeting in Latvia and a meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan. Latvia is appropriate. With the announcement during the past week that our Polish and Italian allies will be withdrawing the remainder of their Iraqi forces in 2007 and the UK announcement that it expects to reduce its already diminished presence of 7,000 by "some thousands" in the coming year, Latvia has vaulted into the position of "critical ally" in the ongoing war in terror in Iraq.
The War on Terror in Iraq has degenerated into civil war. It's one thing to be there killing members of international terrorist groups such as AlQaeda; its another thing to be there killing quarrelsome Iraqis fighting among themselves to see which crazy Mullah will become "the power behind the throne" of the "democratic government." If there is any logic left to our presence, it lies in the hope that eventually all of the crazies will kill each other off and allow for a stable, middle class Iraqi society to emerge as a regional "democratic paradise." And, if you believe that, you probably also believe there are forty virgins waiting for you in heaven.
Iraq has evolved, through virtually every fault of our own, from "the center stage in the War on Terror, " to the center piece of Bush's new "nation building" diplomacy. And, although Vietnam may not be an exact parallel, it was this same mentality of "we can accomplish anything we want, anywhere," that led to twenty plus years of frustration, untold billions of dollars wasted, and 50,000 dead Americans.
Indeed, the sole "reason" for the Iraqi invasion now lies in this policy, nation building. Powell was absolutely right, "if you break it, you own it." No WMD, no 9/11 connection, no post invasion stability. And, most of those (save the elected Cheney) who advocated the invasion, from Iraqi ex-patriots who had hoped to seize power now back in London or whereever, to Richard Pearle, now outside the Administration complaining about incompetence, are gone.
The one positive aspect of Iraq is that we have NOT been there 20 years or lost 50,000 dead Americans...yet. The two decade long agony of Vietnam (now, according to Bush, one of the "young tigers" of Asia) has been compressed in three and half years in Iraq. The November election reminds me of the old phrase: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
The fact that Bush is meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan, not Baghdad, says everything.
His trip this week, after returning from Asia last week, will be to a NATO meeting in Latvia and a meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan. Latvia is appropriate. With the announcement during the past week that our Polish and Italian allies will be withdrawing the remainder of their Iraqi forces in 2007 and the UK announcement that it expects to reduce its already diminished presence of 7,000 by "some thousands" in the coming year, Latvia has vaulted into the position of "critical ally" in the ongoing war in terror in Iraq.
The War on Terror in Iraq has degenerated into civil war. It's one thing to be there killing members of international terrorist groups such as AlQaeda; its another thing to be there killing quarrelsome Iraqis fighting among themselves to see which crazy Mullah will become "the power behind the throne" of the "democratic government." If there is any logic left to our presence, it lies in the hope that eventually all of the crazies will kill each other off and allow for a stable, middle class Iraqi society to emerge as a regional "democratic paradise." And, if you believe that, you probably also believe there are forty virgins waiting for you in heaven.
Iraq has evolved, through virtually every fault of our own, from "the center stage in the War on Terror, " to the center piece of Bush's new "nation building" diplomacy. And, although Vietnam may not be an exact parallel, it was this same mentality of "we can accomplish anything we want, anywhere," that led to twenty plus years of frustration, untold billions of dollars wasted, and 50,000 dead Americans.
Indeed, the sole "reason" for the Iraqi invasion now lies in this policy, nation building. Powell was absolutely right, "if you break it, you own it." No WMD, no 9/11 connection, no post invasion stability. And, most of those (save the elected Cheney) who advocated the invasion, from Iraqi ex-patriots who had hoped to seize power now back in London or whereever, to Richard Pearle, now outside the Administration complaining about incompetence, are gone.
The one positive aspect of Iraq is that we have NOT been there 20 years or lost 50,000 dead Americans...yet. The two decade long agony of Vietnam (now, according to Bush, one of the "young tigers" of Asia) has been compressed in three and half years in Iraq. The November election reminds me of the old phrase: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
The fact that Bush is meeting with the Iraqi President in Jordan, not Baghdad, says everything.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Charlie Wrangel's Draft Proposal
While I agree with the general thrust of Wrangel's proposal to re institute the draft, there are several factors that make it impractical and one has to assume Wrangel's idea is put forth with a bit of "tongue in cheek" - i.e. if the War on Terror is important enough to win that we adopt pre-emptive wars; must be prepared to fight it for generations; and give up civil liberties in its conduct, the very least we could do is reinstate the draft.
As for what is wrong with it: 1) It's politically impractical. 2) The military doesn't want it - the art of war has become so high tech, it's doubtful a short period of enlistment for draftees would allow for the training required today. And, 3) The composition of today's military, unlike Vietnam (with the occasional McCain/Kerry exception), is according to studies more representative of the country as a whole than Wrangel suggests.
On the other hand, there are a couple of pro-draft points Wrangel has missed. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in our society, the "economic elite" actually shrinks in size, so it takes far fewer of their sons and daughters in military service to hold their "representation ratio."
Perhaps, however, more important is an argument that democracies should only go to war defensively and on rare occasions. But when they do, they should mobilize as much of their population as possible to ensure quick victories, and return to peacetime as fast as possible. Sort of the political side of the Powell Doctrine. War is or should be, the "abnormal state of being," and the best way to ensure that it is over quickly, with minimal casualties, is to utilize overwhelming force.
And, if I remember Roman history correctly, there are historians that trace the failure of the Roman Republic to Roman professional armies and the fall of the later Empire to taking that a step further by handing over the defense of the Empire to an "outsourcing policy" that relied heavily on allied barbarian tribes.
So, the thought that the defense of our country, whose national security is threatened - as opposed to threats that may be handled through police powers - should be a shared burden, spread among all segments of our society, doesn't strike me as all that bad.
As for what is wrong with it: 1) It's politically impractical. 2) The military doesn't want it - the art of war has become so high tech, it's doubtful a short period of enlistment for draftees would allow for the training required today. And, 3) The composition of today's military, unlike Vietnam (with the occasional McCain/Kerry exception), is according to studies more representative of the country as a whole than Wrangel suggests.
On the other hand, there are a couple of pro-draft points Wrangel has missed. As wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in our society, the "economic elite" actually shrinks in size, so it takes far fewer of their sons and daughters in military service to hold their "representation ratio."
Perhaps, however, more important is an argument that democracies should only go to war defensively and on rare occasions. But when they do, they should mobilize as much of their population as possible to ensure quick victories, and return to peacetime as fast as possible. Sort of the political side of the Powell Doctrine. War is or should be, the "abnormal state of being," and the best way to ensure that it is over quickly, with minimal casualties, is to utilize overwhelming force.
And, if I remember Roman history correctly, there are historians that trace the failure of the Roman Republic to Roman professional armies and the fall of the later Empire to taking that a step further by handing over the defense of the Empire to an "outsourcing policy" that relied heavily on allied barbarian tribes.
So, the thought that the defense of our country, whose national security is threatened - as opposed to threats that may be handled through police powers - should be a shared burden, spread among all segments of our society, doesn't strike me as all that bad.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Can Democrats Win in 2008?
Prior to a few comments on 2008, a bit on 2006. The more I think about it, the more I think I may be correct in regard to the "Kerry Gaff." It's just possible that Democrats have figured out how to beat the Rove style of Republican politics.
The Rove style is to play to the base. That basic proposition almost mandates "attack politics," since the base is in itself small. So, the positive message, to play to that base, has to be reasonably narrow. To gain the larger support necessary to win, the "attack" is preferred, as long as it can in some way be related to the same narrow message the base is hearing.
Secondly, the Rove Machine depends heavily on enormous sums of data and organization. Essentially representing a "minority position" among the electorate, it is extremely important that all of the Rove allies to be on the "same page at the same time," to counter what they feel is basically a liberal media and maximize the impact of their attacks. This requires good organization and communication among the faithful. Not to mention, lots of money.
It generally works - at least in 2000, 2002 and 2004. I have noticed that virtually the moment one Republican goes onto the attack, all do...with the same message, down to the same phrasing.
But, even prior to the Kerry Gaff, Republicans went into 2006 in a position they most decidedly dislike, the defensive position. With two-thirds of the electorate against "their" war in Iraq, struggling to make a connection between that war and the war on terror and explain an economy that was great for a few, bad for a few, and just mediocre for the rest, the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. The ethics problems didn't help. They could point to Representative Jefferson's "cold cash" in his freezer and a questionable land deal in Nevada on the part of Reid, but these were minuscule compared to Delay, Ney, Foley, Cunningham, Abramoff, earmarks, etc.
Events in Iraq weren't going their way either. No reasonable assessment suggested we were "winning" and the only people coming home were either wounded or in body bags. So, if there was some remote connection between Iraq and the War on Terror, which had been the "sale," then how could we be winning the War on Terror and losing in Iraq?
Thus, their chosen platform, the war on terror and the economy, was weak to begin with.
The trouble they were in was adequately reflected in the polls...maybe not the specialized 80 or so polls Rove was reading, but sufficiently mainstream, relatively unbiased ones, that only the most radical ideologues could deny them. And, they went into the closing two weeks of the election, one would guess praying for a miracle.
And, then, along came John Kerry...hehehe. Kerry's "bad joke," which when taken out of context, appeared to be degradating the educational levels of our troops in Iraq was like "mania from heaven." In the attack mode they favored, against an already vanquished foe, they committed a significant error...they went after Kerry.
No matter that Kerry wasn't running for re-election. No matter that as hard as they tried to tag him as the "titular head of the Democratic Party," most of us look to the last "winner" as in that role (i.e. Bill Clinton). No matter that among Democrats, Kerry was running a distant 5th for the 2008 Presidential candidacy. They just could not resist going after Kerry a second time.
The result was that most conservative media and Republicans went "off message" for from 4-6 critical days in the last two weeks of a campaign in an election forecast as "close" and during the period where most independents were making up their minds. The question in my mind is not whether Kerry's Gaff was for real or faked, but whether or not conservatives were actually duped by Democrats and a supposedly liberal media. In other words, was Rove outfoxed?
Remember, that for a day or two; three at the most, this was a major story in the "liberal media" as well as among Democrats. The general reaction was, "Geez...OK, it was a bad joke told badly, but just apologize and get on with it." Ah...but Kerry himself kept it on the front page, by initially refusing an abject apology (and in hindsight, I think correctly...because it was another "Swift Boat Attack"). Had Democrats and the media themselves failed to make it an issue, would the conservative media have made it such a big deal? Ah...fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Fully five or six days, after the Gaff, I caught a "Hannity and Colmes" Fox Network broadcast. The principal topic was still John Kerry, who had little to do, if anything, with the major election issues. Voters had moved on...Rove had not.
So...I've come to the conclusion that the "Kerry Gaff" was not the sole, but a significant factor in the Democratic victories. Goes to show you, that sometimes, the best offense is not necessarily the best defense. But what do they know about military strategy?
Secondly, I was impressed by the Democrats to simply point to the flaws of the current Administration, as recorded in the daily press, in order to win elections without any unified program of their own. That "plan" was there...Nancy's List of Things To Do in the First 100 Hours, but it appeared relatively late and didn't receive any unified Democratic support among the candidates. Presuming a Rove directed campaign would be based on "attack," Democrats wisely gave them nothing to attack, except for Kerry, who really didn't matter much in the voter's mind anyhow. It was really sort of "What! We don't have a Plan for getting out of Iraq? Well, no one does. Put us into office and we'll figure it out."
A final note on Kerry before moving to 2008. As a Democrat, I was initially a Dean supporter, then an Edwards supporter, and ultimately a reluctant Kerry supporter. I thought he was too cerebral and wealthy East Coast Ivy League to gain sufficient popular support to win. But, I never doubted his patriotism, in my mind the deepest sort of patriotism one can offer one's country. He went to war, risked his life, and returned home with medals and a belief that what we had done as a nation was wrong and that he had a patriotic duty to stop it. I seriously doubt his radical statements regarding the behavior of a minority of our forces in the field were conveyed to condemn the U.S. military, but to further the cause of the anti-war movement. To attack his patriotism is pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
But, if the Kerry Gaff was unintentional, it sort of confirms why I had some doubts about him in 2004. If it was intentional, it shows a stroke of genius that merits another look see for 2008. Remember that John Kerry is a guy who has "fallen on his own sword" before and survived.
So, the Democrats finally took back Congress and a bare two weeks after the election began squabbling...hehehe. Pelosi strikes me as a very savvy lady, so what was the deal with Murtha?
My explanation is that she showed appropriate deference to a political debt and silenced a potential problem...namely Murtha himself. Although, I believe Murtha deserves credit for being one of the first to point out that the "Emporer has no clothes," he always impressed me as an "old timer back room politician." His appearance on the FBI Abscam tapes only confirmed my suspicions. It was pretty obvious that he was being offered a bribe and although he didn't take it, he failed to be indignant or to as a minimum inform the bribers (FBI agents) of the rules of the game. Well...maybe he did..."I don't trust you, but once I do, maybe then I'll take your money." That coupled with his recent acid comments on "ethics reform" convinced me that here is a guy overreaching on the strength of his anti-war sentiments.
So, Pelosi, who presumably will need those 87 Murtha votes (those who voted for him as Majority Leader) to push through genuine ethics reform may have come up with a wise solution...I'll back him and he'll lose, but then go away and I'll have paid my "loyalty debt."
I like that. If her claims regarding reform are genuine, she put her agenda ahead of personal power. Not being overwhelmed about NOT supporting her Number 2, Steny Hoyer doesn't bother me. For one, it was an "election." And, for another, it is an indication that she intends to run the Democratic House from the Speaker's chair and is confident in her leadership.
But, I'll be watching those first 100 Hours carefully.
Meanwhile, the front runners in the 2008 Presidential race seem to be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Kerry and an assorted cast of thousands. I would not discount either Dean or Richardson. And Bayh and whatshisname, the Governor of Iowa, although the latter may be throwing his hat in for some leverage in the Iowa caucuses and subsequent Convention.
Hillary has the unfortunate baggage of Bill and liberalism. Bill himself is no more baggage than Bush 41 is to the current Bush...but then, like Bill, Bush 41 wasn't all that bad either. It's just that electing the first woman President is enough of a challenge, without the additional challenge of being part of a "dynasty." We have recently "been there; done that." Three other drawbacks: although she tries hard, she just does not come across as warm and friendly...it may be her intelligence. And, she's feared as a "closet liberal," although she's tried to move away from that. And, thirdly, largely because of that movement, she wound up supporting the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. In two years, if the war is still an issue, it will probably be because things will have gotten worse, not better. Early opposition to it will be a plus.
Barak Obama is the current Democratic heart throb. He's got lots of time and would probably be wise to wait a couple of terms, building a reputation in the Senate. He would also be the first black President. I think the country is ready to elect a black President, such as Powell, but not a black without experience...i.e. as racist as this may sound, a black President who has proven his or her self within a white system. In eight or twelve years it won't be a "white system," plus he'll have the experience. Of course, he might be an excellent VP candidate. But, on the other hand, not with a woman...my oh my, our prejudices certainly make life complicated, don't they?
Dean would be my current favorite but is definitely not an "Democratic establishment candidate." The Clinton's pretty much still run the Party and I have occasionally thought that the Party hierarchy destroyed Dean's chances in 2004 because if he'd won election, Hillary wouldn't have been able to run in 2008 (assuming the Party would renominate the President). Dean has the advantage of still having the "bloggers/Internet crowd" support and did much to insist on a "50 State Democratic Strategy" that produced the 2006 gains...though the Party seems loath to give him any credit (as opposed to Rahm Emmanuel, who is a Party "insider" and has been given most of the credit). Dean has the added advantage of being an early opponent to the war and a fiscal conservative.
Edwards is certainly toiling in the trenches enough to gain some ground. He's also given the "public apology" necessary by saying, "if I knew then, what I know now, I would have never supported the war." That confession, assuming things don't suddenly improve in Iraq, seems to me to be sort of a "litmus test" for any 2008 candidate, Democratic or Republican - and that includes John McCain. Next to being against it from the beginning, genuflection on this point is required.
Evan Bayh is from a famous and respected political family...but may be just too nice a guy. Even if Iraq goes away, the threat of terrorism is likely to continue...so we'll be looking for a true gunslinger, a sort of Paladin (remember Richard Boone), instead of a John Wayne.
Which brings me to my dark horse favorite, New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson. He has a western image, solid international credentials (UN Ambassador), former Congressman, a former Secretary of Energy and speaks Spanish (his mother was Mexican, as were his grandmothers). If there was ever someone "made for the job," considering the times and changing demographics, Richardson seems to be it. Plus, he has a great sense of humor and has shown he can laugh at himself, a trait that will probably become more and more essential as we attempt to solve the impossible.
If one of the front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) gets it, I would think Richardson would be an easy pick for VP, if he wants it. Richardson is well thought of in the Party hierarchy, grew up in Boston, went to Tufts. For more, see his biography on Wikipedia. He's conservative enough to carry part of the West and South, liberal enough to hold the "blue states." And, I assume speaks Spanish well enough to say more than: "Jose, bring me another Jack Daniels and tell me how things are going on the fence for the back forty acres." Finally, he's stayed out of the limelight just enough to give the American electorate the impression that he's a "new face."
Then, there is Kerry and Gore. I voted for both of them...well, maybe I voted for Nader instead of Gore, but he was my second choice. I have no great feelings one way or the other about either, but a vague understanding that their time has come and gone. Honorable, senior statesmen, whose advice would be welcome...but, then they "lost" didn't they?
Soooo....sports fans...if the Party decides Hillary and Barak would be nice but suicidal, my pick is Richardson...this week.
The Rove style is to play to the base. That basic proposition almost mandates "attack politics," since the base is in itself small. So, the positive message, to play to that base, has to be reasonably narrow. To gain the larger support necessary to win, the "attack" is preferred, as long as it can in some way be related to the same narrow message the base is hearing.
Secondly, the Rove Machine depends heavily on enormous sums of data and organization. Essentially representing a "minority position" among the electorate, it is extremely important that all of the Rove allies to be on the "same page at the same time," to counter what they feel is basically a liberal media and maximize the impact of their attacks. This requires good organization and communication among the faithful. Not to mention, lots of money.
It generally works - at least in 2000, 2002 and 2004. I have noticed that virtually the moment one Republican goes onto the attack, all do...with the same message, down to the same phrasing.
But, even prior to the Kerry Gaff, Republicans went into 2006 in a position they most decidedly dislike, the defensive position. With two-thirds of the electorate against "their" war in Iraq, struggling to make a connection between that war and the war on terror and explain an economy that was great for a few, bad for a few, and just mediocre for the rest, the deck was stacked against them from the beginning. The ethics problems didn't help. They could point to Representative Jefferson's "cold cash" in his freezer and a questionable land deal in Nevada on the part of Reid, but these were minuscule compared to Delay, Ney, Foley, Cunningham, Abramoff, earmarks, etc.
Events in Iraq weren't going their way either. No reasonable assessment suggested we were "winning" and the only people coming home were either wounded or in body bags. So, if there was some remote connection between Iraq and the War on Terror, which had been the "sale," then how could we be winning the War on Terror and losing in Iraq?
Thus, their chosen platform, the war on terror and the economy, was weak to begin with.
The trouble they were in was adequately reflected in the polls...maybe not the specialized 80 or so polls Rove was reading, but sufficiently mainstream, relatively unbiased ones, that only the most radical ideologues could deny them. And, they went into the closing two weeks of the election, one would guess praying for a miracle.
And, then, along came John Kerry...hehehe. Kerry's "bad joke," which when taken out of context, appeared to be degradating the educational levels of our troops in Iraq was like "mania from heaven." In the attack mode they favored, against an already vanquished foe, they committed a significant error...they went after Kerry.
No matter that Kerry wasn't running for re-election. No matter that as hard as they tried to tag him as the "titular head of the Democratic Party," most of us look to the last "winner" as in that role (i.e. Bill Clinton). No matter that among Democrats, Kerry was running a distant 5th for the 2008 Presidential candidacy. They just could not resist going after Kerry a second time.
The result was that most conservative media and Republicans went "off message" for from 4-6 critical days in the last two weeks of a campaign in an election forecast as "close" and during the period where most independents were making up their minds. The question in my mind is not whether Kerry's Gaff was for real or faked, but whether or not conservatives were actually duped by Democrats and a supposedly liberal media. In other words, was Rove outfoxed?
Remember, that for a day or two; three at the most, this was a major story in the "liberal media" as well as among Democrats. The general reaction was, "Geez...OK, it was a bad joke told badly, but just apologize and get on with it." Ah...but Kerry himself kept it on the front page, by initially refusing an abject apology (and in hindsight, I think correctly...because it was another "Swift Boat Attack"). Had Democrats and the media themselves failed to make it an issue, would the conservative media have made it such a big deal? Ah...fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Fully five or six days, after the Gaff, I caught a "Hannity and Colmes" Fox Network broadcast. The principal topic was still John Kerry, who had little to do, if anything, with the major election issues. Voters had moved on...Rove had not.
So...I've come to the conclusion that the "Kerry Gaff" was not the sole, but a significant factor in the Democratic victories. Goes to show you, that sometimes, the best offense is not necessarily the best defense. But what do they know about military strategy?
Secondly, I was impressed by the Democrats to simply point to the flaws of the current Administration, as recorded in the daily press, in order to win elections without any unified program of their own. That "plan" was there...Nancy's List of Things To Do in the First 100 Hours, but it appeared relatively late and didn't receive any unified Democratic support among the candidates. Presuming a Rove directed campaign would be based on "attack," Democrats wisely gave them nothing to attack, except for Kerry, who really didn't matter much in the voter's mind anyhow. It was really sort of "What! We don't have a Plan for getting out of Iraq? Well, no one does. Put us into office and we'll figure it out."
A final note on Kerry before moving to 2008. As a Democrat, I was initially a Dean supporter, then an Edwards supporter, and ultimately a reluctant Kerry supporter. I thought he was too cerebral and wealthy East Coast Ivy League to gain sufficient popular support to win. But, I never doubted his patriotism, in my mind the deepest sort of patriotism one can offer one's country. He went to war, risked his life, and returned home with medals and a belief that what we had done as a nation was wrong and that he had a patriotic duty to stop it. I seriously doubt his radical statements regarding the behavior of a minority of our forces in the field were conveyed to condemn the U.S. military, but to further the cause of the anti-war movement. To attack his patriotism is pretty much scrapping the bottom of the barrel.
But, if the Kerry Gaff was unintentional, it sort of confirms why I had some doubts about him in 2004. If it was intentional, it shows a stroke of genius that merits another look see for 2008. Remember that John Kerry is a guy who has "fallen on his own sword" before and survived.
So, the Democrats finally took back Congress and a bare two weeks after the election began squabbling...hehehe. Pelosi strikes me as a very savvy lady, so what was the deal with Murtha?
My explanation is that she showed appropriate deference to a political debt and silenced a potential problem...namely Murtha himself. Although, I believe Murtha deserves credit for being one of the first to point out that the "Emporer has no clothes," he always impressed me as an "old timer back room politician." His appearance on the FBI Abscam tapes only confirmed my suspicions. It was pretty obvious that he was being offered a bribe and although he didn't take it, he failed to be indignant or to as a minimum inform the bribers (FBI agents) of the rules of the game. Well...maybe he did..."I don't trust you, but once I do, maybe then I'll take your money." That coupled with his recent acid comments on "ethics reform" convinced me that here is a guy overreaching on the strength of his anti-war sentiments.
So, Pelosi, who presumably will need those 87 Murtha votes (those who voted for him as Majority Leader) to push through genuine ethics reform may have come up with a wise solution...I'll back him and he'll lose, but then go away and I'll have paid my "loyalty debt."
I like that. If her claims regarding reform are genuine, she put her agenda ahead of personal power. Not being overwhelmed about NOT supporting her Number 2, Steny Hoyer doesn't bother me. For one, it was an "election." And, for another, it is an indication that she intends to run the Democratic House from the Speaker's chair and is confident in her leadership.
But, I'll be watching those first 100 Hours carefully.
Meanwhile, the front runners in the 2008 Presidential race seem to be Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore, Kerry and an assorted cast of thousands. I would not discount either Dean or Richardson. And Bayh and whatshisname, the Governor of Iowa, although the latter may be throwing his hat in for some leverage in the Iowa caucuses and subsequent Convention.
Hillary has the unfortunate baggage of Bill and liberalism. Bill himself is no more baggage than Bush 41 is to the current Bush...but then, like Bill, Bush 41 wasn't all that bad either. It's just that electing the first woman President is enough of a challenge, without the additional challenge of being part of a "dynasty." We have recently "been there; done that." Three other drawbacks: although she tries hard, she just does not come across as warm and friendly...it may be her intelligence. And, she's feared as a "closet liberal," although she's tried to move away from that. And, thirdly, largely because of that movement, she wound up supporting the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq. In two years, if the war is still an issue, it will probably be because things will have gotten worse, not better. Early opposition to it will be a plus.
Barak Obama is the current Democratic heart throb. He's got lots of time and would probably be wise to wait a couple of terms, building a reputation in the Senate. He would also be the first black President. I think the country is ready to elect a black President, such as Powell, but not a black without experience...i.e. as racist as this may sound, a black President who has proven his or her self within a white system. In eight or twelve years it won't be a "white system," plus he'll have the experience. Of course, he might be an excellent VP candidate. But, on the other hand, not with a woman...my oh my, our prejudices certainly make life complicated, don't they?
Dean would be my current favorite but is definitely not an "Democratic establishment candidate." The Clinton's pretty much still run the Party and I have occasionally thought that the Party hierarchy destroyed Dean's chances in 2004 because if he'd won election, Hillary wouldn't have been able to run in 2008 (assuming the Party would renominate the President). Dean has the advantage of still having the "bloggers/Internet crowd" support and did much to insist on a "50 State Democratic Strategy" that produced the 2006 gains...though the Party seems loath to give him any credit (as opposed to Rahm Emmanuel, who is a Party "insider" and has been given most of the credit). Dean has the added advantage of being an early opponent to the war and a fiscal conservative.
Edwards is certainly toiling in the trenches enough to gain some ground. He's also given the "public apology" necessary by saying, "if I knew then, what I know now, I would have never supported the war." That confession, assuming things don't suddenly improve in Iraq, seems to me to be sort of a "litmus test" for any 2008 candidate, Democratic or Republican - and that includes John McCain. Next to being against it from the beginning, genuflection on this point is required.
Evan Bayh is from a famous and respected political family...but may be just too nice a guy. Even if Iraq goes away, the threat of terrorism is likely to continue...so we'll be looking for a true gunslinger, a sort of Paladin (remember Richard Boone), instead of a John Wayne.
Which brings me to my dark horse favorite, New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson. He has a western image, solid international credentials (UN Ambassador), former Congressman, a former Secretary of Energy and speaks Spanish (his mother was Mexican, as were his grandmothers). If there was ever someone "made for the job," considering the times and changing demographics, Richardson seems to be it. Plus, he has a great sense of humor and has shown he can laugh at himself, a trait that will probably become more and more essential as we attempt to solve the impossible.
If one of the front runners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) gets it, I would think Richardson would be an easy pick for VP, if he wants it. Richardson is well thought of in the Party hierarchy, grew up in Boston, went to Tufts. For more, see his biography on Wikipedia. He's conservative enough to carry part of the West and South, liberal enough to hold the "blue states." And, I assume speaks Spanish well enough to say more than: "Jose, bring me another Jack Daniels and tell me how things are going on the fence for the back forty acres." Finally, he's stayed out of the limelight just enough to give the American electorate the impression that he's a "new face."
Then, there is Kerry and Gore. I voted for both of them...well, maybe I voted for Nader instead of Gore, but he was my second choice. I have no great feelings one way or the other about either, but a vague understanding that their time has come and gone. Honorable, senior statesmen, whose advice would be welcome...but, then they "lost" didn't they?
Soooo....sports fans...if the Party decides Hillary and Barak would be nice but suicidal, my pick is Richardson...this week.
The Administration and Post Election Foereign Policy
Ah. I am reading this morning about Mr. Nasty's (otherwise known as our VP) comments before the Federalist Society regarding the usual stuff about pre-emptive wars and attacks on civil liberties. This guy just doesn't give up and neither logic, common sense or democratic elections seem to phase him much...although there is always a tidbit thrown into his speeches to cover himself on the latter.
The civil liberty part came in his attack on the Judiciary concerning a Federal District Court's ruling on a portion of the Administration's "Surveillance Program." The part about having to obtain a court warrant prior to listening in on U.S. citizens. I understand Mr. Nasty's point of view and, in part, agree with him. I think 9/11 and the threat of terrorism DOES justify listening in on the international conversations of Al Qaeda operatives and/or suspected operatives and U.S. citizens. The point I don't get is why Mr. Nasty gets so upset at the prospect of going to a special Federal Court to get a warrant, even when that warrant may be accomplished retroactively in emergencies.
I will certainly concede that obtaining the necessary authority and power to fight terrorism effectively today isn't an easy task in a democracy. Fighting "terrorism" in World War II, otherwise known in Europe as the "underground," was probably a lot easier in Nazi Germany than it was in Nazi occupied France. But Mr. Nasty's argument (as usual) simply boils down to a plea for more Executive Branch power without oversight, in a vaguely defined, open-ended "War," and an attack on the checks and balances of our democracy. While Mr. Nasty focused entirely on Judicial "interference" and the role of the Executive, there was nary a word regarding the Courts as protectors of civil liberties. Mr. Nasty would do better in his battle to keep us safe by effectively policing our borders, rather than attacking our Judiciary.
But, it was the part about Iraq that really caught my interest. I quote from his speech:
"To get out before the job is done would convince the terrorists once again (?) that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail." This thought embraces the whole neo-con argument of "roll-back" (i.e. we should have attacked the Soviet Union fifty or sixty years ago and stamped out communism, rather than "winning" through containment) and that we should have "won" in South Vietnam.
This is an interesting, if not new thought, particularly in wake of the November 7th elections and the fact that his boss, the Pres, was on the same day explaining in Hanoi, the following.
When asked about the lessons of Vietnam and how they might relate to Iraq, the President replied, "One lesson is, that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while. Its just going to take a long period of time for the ideology that is hopeful, and that is an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate. We'll succeed unless we quit." Mr. Bush then went on to say, regarding the Vietnamese government, " I have seen firsthand the great vibrancy and the excitement that's taking place in Vietnam. You're like a young tiger, and I look forward to continuing to work to make sure our bilateral relations are close."
Huh? This wise observation was in the capital city of an enemy we fought for two decades, lost 50,000 American lives, killed untold hundreds of thousands of others, and eventually left with our tail between our legs. The Presidential points (the Pres and Mr. Nasty) re. Iraq, would have made some sense if we'd "won" in Vietnam. If memory serves correctly, we did not "win," and Vietnam went on to rebuild, violently (or through "re-education") eliminate any and all opposition and achieve "young tiger" status.
Are these people still campaigning? Logic (which seldom enters into campaigns) would tell me that the lesson of Vietnam for Iraq is to immediately leave, let the Iraqis fight it out, and eventually, "after a long period of time," they will become, like the Vietnamese, "young tigers." But both Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments tell me they still don't get it...and, in view of the November elections, it also tells me..."ideology trumps democracy." Stay the course for what...an obviously failed policy?
So Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments reveal what this whole thing is really about. It's not about democracy or even religion. It's about "capitalism." We really don't give a damn about what sort of government or religion you have, as long as you don't bother us (as in 9/11) and give us cheap labor (as in China and Vietnam) and oil (as in Iraq).
This is pure Calvin Coolidge and Charlie Wilson stuff. Coolidge, who once said, "the business of America is business" and Charlie Wilson (Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense), who said: "What's good for America is good for General Motors...and vice versa." Not too surprising from our first MBA President and the former CEO of Halliburton, a company that has reaped enormous profits from the war in Iraq. [No...I don't think Halliburton was THE reason we went into Iraq...in Mr. Nasty's twisted perception of foreign policy, it was an ancillary "win-win" deal.]
What neither of these guys seem to see or understand is that China, Vietnam, to a lesser extent, India, and most of continental Western Europe live under systems which might be roughly defined as "democratic socialism." As the commercial engine for the world, and in the aftermath of the failure of communism in the former Soviet Union, the Asian economic success stories are based, in large measure, on our own willingness to trade with them, in the quest for cheap goods, based on cheap labor. In Europe, it was probably a case of "it's either going to be democratic socialism or communism" and we opted for support of the former.
With these guys, it's not about democracy; its about "factors of production" and a safe and secure system that benefits the investment class...i.e. those smart enough to have learned to acquire a lot of wealth by not physically working for a living (e.g. Wall Street, Corporate management, et al). This is why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, but can't find an extra 20,000 or so to enforce our own borders. [More on that in subsequent posts - but, border enforcement is anti-NAFTA, which was created as a counter-weight to the European Union, which - at least in Western Europe - has done away with border controls and allows the free passage of EU members, with the UK as an exception.]
Sooo...from "wars of choice". to the open ended War on Terrorism, to tax cuts for the upper 5%, and "business as usual," the common theme of this Administration is based on the Coolidge dictum of "the business of America is business." It's not about social security, border enforcement, universal health care, or anything else which may impact the vast majority of us, aside from the loosely defined, but genuine, threat to national security.
There is, in my opinion, a legitimate argument for certain aspects of this policy. National security IS the primary duty of any President. A strong and prosperous "investment class" IS beneficial to the entire community. In those goals, I would agree with the Administration. But, as they say, the devil is in the detail, and the degree to which national resources are devoted to the overall needs of the community, and by community, I do not mean the global community. Mr. President, you were "hired" by us to take care of us...not the world. In both foreign and domestic policy, my conclusion is that we are very close to "maxing out" our credit.
In closing this post, let me suggest an "out of the box" thought. The war in Iraq was launched on the supposition that there was some imminent national security threat via weapons of mass destruction. Getting rid of Hussein, establishing a democracy in the region, oil, protection of Israel, ALL of the rest, were secondary to the WMD argument and that argument justified the pre-emptive war. Once we reached Baghdad, disposed of Hussein and found no WMD, we no longer had a justifiable reason to remain. As nice as it would be for the millions of Iraqi people to live in democracy and freedom, we have no commitment to them, other than the fact that we are there, based on an enormous error in intelligence. But we have neither the resources, nor political will to export democracy to the rest of the world. The sole reason we remain is due to what was once referred to as "mission creep." Iraqi stability and secular democracy are "covers" for the original failure and the inability of the people who made that error to admit it.
It is time for our Political CEO's to liquidate what has turned into a bad investment. Or, to use an old Texas phrase, "to stop pouring money (and lives) down a dry hole." There is no need for a single American soldier to die for Iraqi freedom. Or, for that matter, for any one's freedom, other than our own. Nor is Presidential Pride and legacy worth the life of one American soldier...and if we think so, we no longer have that democracy the Administration loves to talk about. If the President thinks he has to "stay the course" in face of a failed policy, which is costing American lives, then he should be impeached, even if that impeachment occurs one day before his term expires. Polosie should have taken a cue from the Administration and left "all options on the table."
We need to make it clear that we are getting out of Iraq as quickly as is prudent and inform the Iraqi government of our decision. In this case, a timetable is reasonable. True, a timetable will allow insurgents to "go to ground" and reemerge after we've left...but that's the Iraqis problem, not ours, and the effect may be to reduce American causalities during the withdrawal process.
Finally, in my opinion, we are due some Presidential penance. Changing deck chairs on the Titanic is not enough. I want acknowledgement that we weren't on the look out for icebergs. I want a disavowal of the crazy notion that this country somehow has a responsibility to bring democracy to the world. I want a definition of the "war on terror." Who does this mean? How do we know we've "won?" And, I want you, Mr. President, to tell Mr. Nasty to just shut up. As the Chief Decider this shouldn't be all that difficult.
Next Post...Why the Democrats will probably lose the fleeting power they've gained in 2008.
The civil liberty part came in his attack on the Judiciary concerning a Federal District Court's ruling on a portion of the Administration's "Surveillance Program." The part about having to obtain a court warrant prior to listening in on U.S. citizens. I understand Mr. Nasty's point of view and, in part, agree with him. I think 9/11 and the threat of terrorism DOES justify listening in on the international conversations of Al Qaeda operatives and/or suspected operatives and U.S. citizens. The point I don't get is why Mr. Nasty gets so upset at the prospect of going to a special Federal Court to get a warrant, even when that warrant may be accomplished retroactively in emergencies.
I will certainly concede that obtaining the necessary authority and power to fight terrorism effectively today isn't an easy task in a democracy. Fighting "terrorism" in World War II, otherwise known in Europe as the "underground," was probably a lot easier in Nazi Germany than it was in Nazi occupied France. But Mr. Nasty's argument (as usual) simply boils down to a plea for more Executive Branch power without oversight, in a vaguely defined, open-ended "War," and an attack on the checks and balances of our democracy. While Mr. Nasty focused entirely on Judicial "interference" and the role of the Executive, there was nary a word regarding the Courts as protectors of civil liberties. Mr. Nasty would do better in his battle to keep us safe by effectively policing our borders, rather than attacking our Judiciary.
But, it was the part about Iraq that really caught my interest. I quote from his speech:
"To get out before the job is done would convince the terrorists once again (?) that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail." This thought embraces the whole neo-con argument of "roll-back" (i.e. we should have attacked the Soviet Union fifty or sixty years ago and stamped out communism, rather than "winning" through containment) and that we should have "won" in South Vietnam.
This is an interesting, if not new thought, particularly in wake of the November 7th elections and the fact that his boss, the Pres, was on the same day explaining in Hanoi, the following.
When asked about the lessons of Vietnam and how they might relate to Iraq, the President replied, "One lesson is, that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while. Its just going to take a long period of time for the ideology that is hopeful, and that is an ideology of freedom, to overcome an ideology of hate. We'll succeed unless we quit." Mr. Bush then went on to say, regarding the Vietnamese government, " I have seen firsthand the great vibrancy and the excitement that's taking place in Vietnam. You're like a young tiger, and I look forward to continuing to work to make sure our bilateral relations are close."
Huh? This wise observation was in the capital city of an enemy we fought for two decades, lost 50,000 American lives, killed untold hundreds of thousands of others, and eventually left with our tail between our legs. The Presidential points (the Pres and Mr. Nasty) re. Iraq, would have made some sense if we'd "won" in Vietnam. If memory serves correctly, we did not "win," and Vietnam went on to rebuild, violently (or through "re-education") eliminate any and all opposition and achieve "young tiger" status.
Are these people still campaigning? Logic (which seldom enters into campaigns) would tell me that the lesson of Vietnam for Iraq is to immediately leave, let the Iraqis fight it out, and eventually, "after a long period of time," they will become, like the Vietnamese, "young tigers." But both Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments tell me they still don't get it...and, in view of the November elections, it also tells me..."ideology trumps democracy." Stay the course for what...an obviously failed policy?
So Bush and Mr. Nasty's comments reveal what this whole thing is really about. It's not about democracy or even religion. It's about "capitalism." We really don't give a damn about what sort of government or religion you have, as long as you don't bother us (as in 9/11) and give us cheap labor (as in China and Vietnam) and oil (as in Iraq).
This is pure Calvin Coolidge and Charlie Wilson stuff. Coolidge, who once said, "the business of America is business" and Charlie Wilson (Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense), who said: "What's good for America is good for General Motors...and vice versa." Not too surprising from our first MBA President and the former CEO of Halliburton, a company that has reaped enormous profits from the war in Iraq. [No...I don't think Halliburton was THE reason we went into Iraq...in Mr. Nasty's twisted perception of foreign policy, it was an ancillary "win-win" deal.]
What neither of these guys seem to see or understand is that China, Vietnam, to a lesser extent, India, and most of continental Western Europe live under systems which might be roughly defined as "democratic socialism." As the commercial engine for the world, and in the aftermath of the failure of communism in the former Soviet Union, the Asian economic success stories are based, in large measure, on our own willingness to trade with them, in the quest for cheap goods, based on cheap labor. In Europe, it was probably a case of "it's either going to be democratic socialism or communism" and we opted for support of the former.
With these guys, it's not about democracy; its about "factors of production" and a safe and secure system that benefits the investment class...i.e. those smart enough to have learned to acquire a lot of wealth by not physically working for a living (e.g. Wall Street, Corporate management, et al). This is why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq, but can't find an extra 20,000 or so to enforce our own borders. [More on that in subsequent posts - but, border enforcement is anti-NAFTA, which was created as a counter-weight to the European Union, which - at least in Western Europe - has done away with border controls and allows the free passage of EU members, with the UK as an exception.]
Sooo...from "wars of choice". to the open ended War on Terrorism, to tax cuts for the upper 5%, and "business as usual," the common theme of this Administration is based on the Coolidge dictum of "the business of America is business." It's not about social security, border enforcement, universal health care, or anything else which may impact the vast majority of us, aside from the loosely defined, but genuine, threat to national security.
There is, in my opinion, a legitimate argument for certain aspects of this policy. National security IS the primary duty of any President. A strong and prosperous "investment class" IS beneficial to the entire community. In those goals, I would agree with the Administration. But, as they say, the devil is in the detail, and the degree to which national resources are devoted to the overall needs of the community, and by community, I do not mean the global community. Mr. President, you were "hired" by us to take care of us...not the world. In both foreign and domestic policy, my conclusion is that we are very close to "maxing out" our credit.
In closing this post, let me suggest an "out of the box" thought. The war in Iraq was launched on the supposition that there was some imminent national security threat via weapons of mass destruction. Getting rid of Hussein, establishing a democracy in the region, oil, protection of Israel, ALL of the rest, were secondary to the WMD argument and that argument justified the pre-emptive war. Once we reached Baghdad, disposed of Hussein and found no WMD, we no longer had a justifiable reason to remain. As nice as it would be for the millions of Iraqi people to live in democracy and freedom, we have no commitment to them, other than the fact that we are there, based on an enormous error in intelligence. But we have neither the resources, nor political will to export democracy to the rest of the world. The sole reason we remain is due to what was once referred to as "mission creep." Iraqi stability and secular democracy are "covers" for the original failure and the inability of the people who made that error to admit it.
It is time for our Political CEO's to liquidate what has turned into a bad investment. Or, to use an old Texas phrase, "to stop pouring money (and lives) down a dry hole." There is no need for a single American soldier to die for Iraqi freedom. Or, for that matter, for any one's freedom, other than our own. Nor is Presidential Pride and legacy worth the life of one American soldier...and if we think so, we no longer have that democracy the Administration loves to talk about. If the President thinks he has to "stay the course" in face of a failed policy, which is costing American lives, then he should be impeached, even if that impeachment occurs one day before his term expires. Polosie should have taken a cue from the Administration and left "all options on the table."
We need to make it clear that we are getting out of Iraq as quickly as is prudent and inform the Iraqi government of our decision. In this case, a timetable is reasonable. True, a timetable will allow insurgents to "go to ground" and reemerge after we've left...but that's the Iraqis problem, not ours, and the effect may be to reduce American causalities during the withdrawal process.
Finally, in my opinion, we are due some Presidential penance. Changing deck chairs on the Titanic is not enough. I want acknowledgement that we weren't on the look out for icebergs. I want a disavowal of the crazy notion that this country somehow has a responsibility to bring democracy to the world. I want a definition of the "war on terror." Who does this mean? How do we know we've "won?" And, I want you, Mr. President, to tell Mr. Nasty to just shut up. As the Chief Decider this shouldn't be all that difficult.
Next Post...Why the Democrats will probably lose the fleeting power they've gained in 2008.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Corrected on Bolton
Tommyblog has corrected me on Bolton, pointing out that he remains essentially "anti-UN," and his continuance in the UN post would not exactly show a "new direction" in US foreign policy.
OK. However, it still seems to be that the Administration's call for his confirmation is still sort of the "preliminary fight" beforee the main event...Iraq and the Democrats would be wiser to simply side step te issue and not waste, in GW's terms, "political capital" on it. There has been some housecleaning of Administration neo-cons since 2004 and letting the Democrats do the coup d'grace on Bolton is probably pretty much doing Bush's job for him.
Suppose that if I were in the Dems shoes, I'd just make it clear that Bolton doesn't have the votes to be confirmed, but if pressed for an "up or down vote," they'd be happy to call Bolton back for further hearings and make those hearings Step One of the Iraqi investigation process and focus on neo-con influence within the Administration.
Another note on Iraq. If anyone wants to get some understanding of the difficulties in Iraq, go revisit "Lawrence of Arabia." Aside from great acting, great photography, etc. there is quite a bit of political history in the lead up to time when the British eventually drew up the Iraq borders. I remember one scene wherein Lawrence is pleading with the British and French authorities for more arms for his rag-tag Arab Army, fighting the German allied Turks. They grant him more guns, ammunition, dynamite, etc., but draw the line at the WMD of the day, artillery. No artillery. Guns make revolutions. Artillery makes governments.
OK. However, it still seems to be that the Administration's call for his confirmation is still sort of the "preliminary fight" beforee the main event...Iraq and the Democrats would be wiser to simply side step te issue and not waste, in GW's terms, "political capital" on it. There has been some housecleaning of Administration neo-cons since 2004 and letting the Democrats do the coup d'grace on Bolton is probably pretty much doing Bush's job for him.
Suppose that if I were in the Dems shoes, I'd just make it clear that Bolton doesn't have the votes to be confirmed, but if pressed for an "up or down vote," they'd be happy to call Bolton back for further hearings and make those hearings Step One of the Iraqi investigation process and focus on neo-con influence within the Administration.
Another note on Iraq. If anyone wants to get some understanding of the difficulties in Iraq, go revisit "Lawrence of Arabia." Aside from great acting, great photography, etc. there is quite a bit of political history in the lead up to time when the British eventually drew up the Iraq borders. I remember one scene wherein Lawrence is pleading with the British and French authorities for more arms for his rag-tag Arab Army, fighting the German allied Turks. They grant him more guns, ammunition, dynamite, etc., but draw the line at the WMD of the day, artillery. No artillery. Guns make revolutions. Artillery makes governments.
Friday, November 10, 2006
A Word on John Bolton
Bolton may be one of the few remaining neo-cons in the Administration and remains as the unconfirmed Ambassador to the UN. As such, he's "easy pickins."
However, my impression (and I am willing to be corrected on this as well) is that he hasn't really done too bad a job. From the Press, I expected Khrushchev shoe banging. Unless there is something I don't know and assuming he'd be gone in 2008 with a Democratic Presidential victory, it would seem to me that Democrats could give this one to Bush without any actual harm. I believe Bolton has remained relatively focused on "cleaning up the UN," but has gone about it in a responsible, quiet way...and few could disagree with the need for a UN cleansing.
Maybe as part of the confirmation hearings, the Dems could get him to sign a "loyalty oath," disavowing his prior neo-con sentiments? IOW, put him through some grilling, but be magnanimous...and "trade" his confirmation for something more tangible.
However, my impression (and I am willing to be corrected on this as well) is that he hasn't really done too bad a job. From the Press, I expected Khrushchev shoe banging. Unless there is something I don't know and assuming he'd be gone in 2008 with a Democratic Presidential victory, it would seem to me that Democrats could give this one to Bush without any actual harm. I believe Bolton has remained relatively focused on "cleaning up the UN," but has gone about it in a responsible, quiet way...and few could disagree with the need for a UN cleansing.
Maybe as part of the confirmation hearings, the Dems could get him to sign a "loyalty oath," disavowing his prior neo-con sentiments? IOW, put him through some grilling, but be magnanimous...and "trade" his confirmation for something more tangible.
Part II - The Democratic Opportunity
I turned on the news this morning to learn that less than a week following the Democratic election victory, George McGovern was to present his plan for getting out of Iraq to Democrats and Charlie Wrangle was trying to kick Cheney out of his Congressional office, arguing that the office was traditionally reserved for the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Great...they haven't even taken power yet and they've started shooting themselves in the foot.
I am open to correction on this point, but I associate McGovern with the Democratic left equivalent of the Republican right neo-cons. If there is still a McGovern Wing in the Democratic Party, I understand why they' ve been out of power for 12 years. As for Charlie, his complaint only seems to confirm the Republican comments about "measuring the windows for drapes." Surely, he can think of something else to talk about at this moment other than Dick Cheney's office.
I would suggest that just before the Congressional Democrats go to bed at night and immediately upon rising they say the following: "Americans vote out whom they don't like and do not vote in whom they like." Repeat that 20 times each evening and morning. Chaffee's loss in Rhode Island was a metaphor for the entire election..."gee, you're a nice guy, but I am sending a message."
The election victory was an opportunity handed to the Democrats by the American voter based on the same motivation that had them putting Republicans into power in 2004...namely fear. This time, it was fear of Republicans, misguided policies and incompetence. It was NOT because they've bought into the Democratic "agenda," which - as reasonable as it might be - came only late and with little election publicity in the campaign. On Iraq...frankly with notable exceptions (Howard Dean being one)...most Democrats were BEHIND public opinion on the war.
The 2008 campaign began on Wednesday. In my opinion, the message - loud and clear - is that we are tired of polarizing policies by both parties and want to see more bipartisanship in Congress, with middle of the road real solutions to real problems. If you disregard this message and use the opportunity to either gloat, get even, or swing the country to the left wing of your party...you'll be out of office as fast as you came back in...in 2008.
Geez...the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group now has the center of the stage, for both parties. What the hell is George McGovern doing? OK...OK...it's a Big Tent...everybody is entitled to be heard...but I'll pay close attention to who is listening. As for Charlie....Charlie, get a life.
I think Democrats came close to becoming completely irrelevant and it was only the old saying about "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," that saved them from oblivion. To take advantage of the opportunity they've been given they must achieve a bi-partisan solution in Iraq and initially pass some bi-partisan legislation. This may actually work on a few issues...immigration...minimum wage...education. The biggies...tax cuts...health care...social security are probably NOT going to be resolved on a bi-partisan basis. Given their Congressional numbers and GW's veto power (wonder how many pens he's received since the election)...controversal issues should have the overwhelming support of the American people...thus painting GW as the "Daschle Obstructionist."
As of now, it appears 2008 is going to be a fight for the middle. Both parties are going to be looking for an early critic of the war, who is a fiscal conservative and "clean." Sooo...at least through 2008, the old Democratic liberal warhorses are going to have to fake it and at least appear like normal people.
Great...they haven't even taken power yet and they've started shooting themselves in the foot.
I am open to correction on this point, but I associate McGovern with the Democratic left equivalent of the Republican right neo-cons. If there is still a McGovern Wing in the Democratic Party, I understand why they' ve been out of power for 12 years. As for Charlie, his complaint only seems to confirm the Republican comments about "measuring the windows for drapes." Surely, he can think of something else to talk about at this moment other than Dick Cheney's office.
I would suggest that just before the Congressional Democrats go to bed at night and immediately upon rising they say the following: "Americans vote out whom they don't like and do not vote in whom they like." Repeat that 20 times each evening and morning. Chaffee's loss in Rhode Island was a metaphor for the entire election..."gee, you're a nice guy, but I am sending a message."
The election victory was an opportunity handed to the Democrats by the American voter based on the same motivation that had them putting Republicans into power in 2004...namely fear. This time, it was fear of Republicans, misguided policies and incompetence. It was NOT because they've bought into the Democratic "agenda," which - as reasonable as it might be - came only late and with little election publicity in the campaign. On Iraq...frankly with notable exceptions (Howard Dean being one)...most Democrats were BEHIND public opinion on the war.
The 2008 campaign began on Wednesday. In my opinion, the message - loud and clear - is that we are tired of polarizing policies by both parties and want to see more bipartisanship in Congress, with middle of the road real solutions to real problems. If you disregard this message and use the opportunity to either gloat, get even, or swing the country to the left wing of your party...you'll be out of office as fast as you came back in...in 2008.
Geez...the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group now has the center of the stage, for both parties. What the hell is George McGovern doing? OK...OK...it's a Big Tent...everybody is entitled to be heard...but I'll pay close attention to who is listening. As for Charlie....Charlie, get a life.
I think Democrats came close to becoming completely irrelevant and it was only the old saying about "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," that saved them from oblivion. To take advantage of the opportunity they've been given they must achieve a bi-partisan solution in Iraq and initially pass some bi-partisan legislation. This may actually work on a few issues...immigration...minimum wage...education. The biggies...tax cuts...health care...social security are probably NOT going to be resolved on a bi-partisan basis. Given their Congressional numbers and GW's veto power (wonder how many pens he's received since the election)...controversal issues should have the overwhelming support of the American people...thus painting GW as the "Daschle Obstructionist."
As of now, it appears 2008 is going to be a fight for the middle. Both parties are going to be looking for an early critic of the war, who is a fiscal conservative and "clean." Sooo...at least through 2008, the old Democratic liberal warhorses are going to have to fake it and at least appear like normal people.
An Iraq Perspective & The Democratic Opportunity
Ok. Here is my take on Bush and Iraq in a few paragraphs - the Democratic Opportunity will come in the next Post.
Bush was a rich kid struggling in the shadow of his father and trying to find his own identity. He was a playboy, frat guy in his youth; he made a mess of his Air National Guard service; failed at an early attempt at politics; failed in the oil industry and was rescued by the Texas establishment. They allowed him to buy in to the Texas Rangers baseball franchise and put him in the front office as the "front man." If he was lucky, he may have gotten to be Baseball Commissioner someday. Then he met Karl Rove.
Rove took him (but primarily his name) back into Texas politics. He won the Governorship of Texas and did a reasonably good job, in an essentially weak office. He proved adept at co-opting the achievements of others in the Texas legislature. And, with the name, Rove, and a lot of slick marketing wins the Republican nomination for President. Following one of the closest and most contentious elections in our history and thanks to his younger brother in Florida and the Supreme Court, he wins the Presidency.
But, did it really matter to most of the country? The economy looked great on paper and the rich were getting richer, following eight years of Clinton and a cozy relationship with Wall Street and Globalization. So...unless you were a die-hard Democrat, pissed because you believe you've had an election stolen from you...the answer is no. And main street America looks at Bush and thinks: "OK, he's not the brightest star in the sky, but basically a nice guy, who has overcome personal problems and whose values reflect the mainstream. What can go wrong?"
The first thing to go wrong is the economy. The Wall Street "house of cards" takes a tumble. An over valued market and corporate corruption - all of which grew worse and worse under Clinton - puts the economy in the tank and it's up to GW to do whatever he can to fix it.
He falls back on the Republican theory of "trickle down economics." It worked with Kennedy; it worked with Reagan. Big tax cuts to investors allows for more investment. Increased investments leads to new enterprises and new jobs. And, it works...but with a big caveat. Kennedy and Reagan were dealing with a national economy; now the economy (and investment) is global. Without enforcement of anti-trust and new restrictions on the outflow of manufacturing and high tech jobs, the effect of "trickle down economics" only creates more hamburger flippers and Wal Mart employees. The economy looks great on paper; unemployment goes down and the middle class (whose demise began under Clinton) continues to suffer. But, politicians on both sides of the aisle fail to notice, or if they do, simply ignore it - they know who butters their bread. The Democrats attack the tax cuts as simply making the rich, richer (which is no great surprise to anyone) and the Republicans point to the raw data that shows that the tax cuts are working and avoiding increases in unemployment...and they have the added advantage in a procedure that only counts those drawing unemployment insurance as the "unemployed." And, of course, both parties wish the Immigration problem would simply go away - and it won't, because now a sizable number of formerly middle class voters are competing with illegal aliens for jobs as hamburger flippers.
Then, comes 9/11. Had either Party taken Al Qaeda seriously 9/11 in all likelihood would have never occurred. On balance, Clinton may have paid more attention, but didn't want (or couldn't) go through the hassle of invading Afghanistan two years earlier and taking them out. I was never a great fan of the Clinton foreign policy. Homeland security was non-existent. The walls between the FBI and CIA, created in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Church Committee, remained. Our European allies did draw us into the Balkans to prevent genocide in Europe, but we ignored the same in Rwanda and turned tail and ran in Somalia. In my opinion, the Clinton administration forgot to note that U.S. embassies abroad and warships are considered "sovereign U.S. territory" and as much of an attack on the United States as flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. On the other hand, I do not blame Clinton entirely. Until 9/11 all recent U.S. Presidents, when it comes to U.S. military foreign deployments, have lived in the shadow of Vietnam. Carter failed to react in Iran; Reagan in Lebanon. Ironically, and aside from Reagan's poker like bluff that brought an already teetering Soviet Union down, the only savvy post-Vietnam U.S. President (i.e. since Nixon and Kissinger) we've had was, in my opinion, Bush Senior.
But, the story of 9/11 and George W begins, as Bill Maher has noted, with the seven or so minutes of video tape of GW before the elementary school kids in Florida, when he was told "the country is under attack." While I don't make as much of this tape as Michael Moore or Maher, there is little getting around the impression that here is a clueless guy, wondering, "what the hell do I do now?"
By his own admission, GW was neither an intellectual or foreign policy wonk. He didn't read much and when he did, again by his own admission, it was chiefly "sports biographies." [He's tried to change this image over the last few years.] At best, his Vietnam-era service in the Air National Guard was an indication that he had no great interest, at the time, in foreign policy and was chiefly motivated by trying to stay out of harm's way. I don't hold that against him. He was just not interested or involved and struggling at that time apparently with his own personal demons. I believe, other than one brief trip to Europe and several trips to Mexico, as Governor of Texas, he had never traveled abroad. He was just not interested in foreign policy. The closest he came in the 2000 election was a reasonably firm stance against "nation-building."
So, when 9/11 occurred, after the initial 7 or so minute shock, captured on tape, his first thoughts must have turned to his national security advisers, chief among them, Dick Cheney.
Here, aside from Powell (whom, I would suggest, no one took very seriously because of jealosy), there was a distinct vacuum. Neither Cheney or Rumsfeld were "policy wonks." Both were known, not for their enormous intellects, but for their administrative talents. They were good corporate guys and, I suspect, in the failure to anticipate 9/11 or a similar incident, had been put on the ticket and appointed because of these talents. Rumsfeld to clean-up the Pentagon and bring it into the 21st century; Cheney to clean-up the federal government in general, reduce its size and get it to run more efficiently - as well as being the political point man with the oil industry. The overall emphasis was on good "management" and not major policy shifts.
And, overall, until 9/11 this was pretty much of an Administration without a foreign policy... on September 12th, they needed to get one...fast.
Within the broader Republican Party, most were still basking in the sun of Ronald Reagan as the Victor of the Cold War. Aside from sort of generalized dissatisfaction with Marylin "Halfbright" and a perception of weakness in the Clinton administration, "foreign policy" to Republicans was basically defined in terms of dislike of the UN, greater leverage befitting our status as the remaining super power in international organizations (the WTO, et al) and free trade. In actual military terms, Republican interest seemed to be in force modernization and Star Wars...a Reagan legacy.
Now, when a foreign policy was needed, the key players...Cheney and Rumsfeld turned to their staffs...sort of the House intellectuals...the people who were actually policy wonks. And, they found neo-conservatives. People, who without getting into the fine print or messy details, had obtained their jobs through a general agreement with their bosses that the Clinton foreign policy had been a failure and that the United States needed to exercise its power more effectively within the international community. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld are "doers" and not particularly "thinkers." They might know the latest in management techniques, but I doubt either had ever read a book on political theory, or if they had, they skimmed it, took away the facts and never gave it another thought...hurrying back to "doing." But, it was the policy wonks beneath them who had.
In Cheney's office this was "Scooter" Libby. In DoD, it was Paul Wolfwitz and a host of others. Only the State Department had avoided placing neo-cons in policy positions and that didn't matter much to the neo cons, who for the most part considered the State Department useless anyhow.
I suspect that when the histories are written, they may be kinder to Cheney and Rumsfeld than public opinion is now. And, I suspect that both men were largely duped by their own neo-con staffs...the policy wonks. 9/11 required a dramatic statement of U.S. power. I would contend that Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden would have sufficed. But the neo cons, assisted by cherry-picked phony intelligence saw 9/11 as an opportunity to fill a vacuum and seize control of U.S. foreign policy...and Rumsfeld and Cheney, not familiar with the neo-con "fine print" went along. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
So, to Rumsfeld and Cheney, whom Bush relied almost entirely upon for advice, the adoption of neo-con principles was simply a sort of visceral, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. For the die-hard neo-cons who advised them, it was confirmation of everything they'd been preaching since John Foster Dulles argued for "roll-back" in Communist Eastern Europe in the post WWII period and the opportunity to bring about a major post World War II change in American foreign policy.
Rove simply tailored the politics to fit. I seriously doubt he had a major input to the foreign policy shift, but merely structured the political arguments around the Cheney/Rumsfeld policies, in the vein of "selling ice to Eskimos."
And so, largely unconsciously, Bush abandoned 50 some years of successful containment policies and multlateralism, isolated us from much of the world and took us into what has delicately come to be known as, "a war of choice."
The "War on Terror," is really in my opinion not so much the issue with the American people as is Iraq - and they've come to understand the difference. The Iraqi prison scandal, the torture scandal and debate, the civil liberties issues regarding surveillance are certainly important collateral issues, but would not be as large as they are without Iraq or the evidence of Administration incompetence - i.e. public opinion would say, "OK...temporarily...but be very, very careful." But faced with a war instituted on false premises and the examples of Katrina, EVERYTHING, now became suspicious and important.
There has been a colassal, but understandable mistake in American foreign policy. And, there is some indication that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld came to acknowledge this during the 2004 election campaign. Most, if not all, of the neo-cons are now gone from government. Quietly, without fanfare they've either been dismissed or, in Wolfwitz's case, kicked upstairs. Their departures are an indication that Republican leadership finally realized what exactly they were being asked to buy into and turned away. The neo-con hijacking of foreign policy failed...and now we have the mess they made to clean-up. It ain't going to be easy...for either Republicans or Democrats.
Bush was a rich kid struggling in the shadow of his father and trying to find his own identity. He was a playboy, frat guy in his youth; he made a mess of his Air National Guard service; failed at an early attempt at politics; failed in the oil industry and was rescued by the Texas establishment. They allowed him to buy in to the Texas Rangers baseball franchise and put him in the front office as the "front man." If he was lucky, he may have gotten to be Baseball Commissioner someday. Then he met Karl Rove.
Rove took him (but primarily his name) back into Texas politics. He won the Governorship of Texas and did a reasonably good job, in an essentially weak office. He proved adept at co-opting the achievements of others in the Texas legislature. And, with the name, Rove, and a lot of slick marketing wins the Republican nomination for President. Following one of the closest and most contentious elections in our history and thanks to his younger brother in Florida and the Supreme Court, he wins the Presidency.
But, did it really matter to most of the country? The economy looked great on paper and the rich were getting richer, following eight years of Clinton and a cozy relationship with Wall Street and Globalization. So...unless you were a die-hard Democrat, pissed because you believe you've had an election stolen from you...the answer is no. And main street America looks at Bush and thinks: "OK, he's not the brightest star in the sky, but basically a nice guy, who has overcome personal problems and whose values reflect the mainstream. What can go wrong?"
The first thing to go wrong is the economy. The Wall Street "house of cards" takes a tumble. An over valued market and corporate corruption - all of which grew worse and worse under Clinton - puts the economy in the tank and it's up to GW to do whatever he can to fix it.
He falls back on the Republican theory of "trickle down economics." It worked with Kennedy; it worked with Reagan. Big tax cuts to investors allows for more investment. Increased investments leads to new enterprises and new jobs. And, it works...but with a big caveat. Kennedy and Reagan were dealing with a national economy; now the economy (and investment) is global. Without enforcement of anti-trust and new restrictions on the outflow of manufacturing and high tech jobs, the effect of "trickle down economics" only creates more hamburger flippers and Wal Mart employees. The economy looks great on paper; unemployment goes down and the middle class (whose demise began under Clinton) continues to suffer. But, politicians on both sides of the aisle fail to notice, or if they do, simply ignore it - they know who butters their bread. The Democrats attack the tax cuts as simply making the rich, richer (which is no great surprise to anyone) and the Republicans point to the raw data that shows that the tax cuts are working and avoiding increases in unemployment...and they have the added advantage in a procedure that only counts those drawing unemployment insurance as the "unemployed." And, of course, both parties wish the Immigration problem would simply go away - and it won't, because now a sizable number of formerly middle class voters are competing with illegal aliens for jobs as hamburger flippers.
Then, comes 9/11. Had either Party taken Al Qaeda seriously 9/11 in all likelihood would have never occurred. On balance, Clinton may have paid more attention, but didn't want (or couldn't) go through the hassle of invading Afghanistan two years earlier and taking them out. I was never a great fan of the Clinton foreign policy. Homeland security was non-existent. The walls between the FBI and CIA, created in the aftermath of Vietnam and the Church Committee, remained. Our European allies did draw us into the Balkans to prevent genocide in Europe, but we ignored the same in Rwanda and turned tail and ran in Somalia. In my opinion, the Clinton administration forgot to note that U.S. embassies abroad and warships are considered "sovereign U.S. territory" and as much of an attack on the United States as flying airplanes into the World Trade Center. On the other hand, I do not blame Clinton entirely. Until 9/11 all recent U.S. Presidents, when it comes to U.S. military foreign deployments, have lived in the shadow of Vietnam. Carter failed to react in Iran; Reagan in Lebanon. Ironically, and aside from Reagan's poker like bluff that brought an already teetering Soviet Union down, the only savvy post-Vietnam U.S. President (i.e. since Nixon and Kissinger) we've had was, in my opinion, Bush Senior.
But, the story of 9/11 and George W begins, as Bill Maher has noted, with the seven or so minutes of video tape of GW before the elementary school kids in Florida, when he was told "the country is under attack." While I don't make as much of this tape as Michael Moore or Maher, there is little getting around the impression that here is a clueless guy, wondering, "what the hell do I do now?"
By his own admission, GW was neither an intellectual or foreign policy wonk. He didn't read much and when he did, again by his own admission, it was chiefly "sports biographies." [He's tried to change this image over the last few years.] At best, his Vietnam-era service in the Air National Guard was an indication that he had no great interest, at the time, in foreign policy and was chiefly motivated by trying to stay out of harm's way. I don't hold that against him. He was just not interested or involved and struggling at that time apparently with his own personal demons. I believe, other than one brief trip to Europe and several trips to Mexico, as Governor of Texas, he had never traveled abroad. He was just not interested in foreign policy. The closest he came in the 2000 election was a reasonably firm stance against "nation-building."
So, when 9/11 occurred, after the initial 7 or so minute shock, captured on tape, his first thoughts must have turned to his national security advisers, chief among them, Dick Cheney.
Here, aside from Powell (whom, I would suggest, no one took very seriously because of jealosy), there was a distinct vacuum. Neither Cheney or Rumsfeld were "policy wonks." Both were known, not for their enormous intellects, but for their administrative talents. They were good corporate guys and, I suspect, in the failure to anticipate 9/11 or a similar incident, had been put on the ticket and appointed because of these talents. Rumsfeld to clean-up the Pentagon and bring it into the 21st century; Cheney to clean-up the federal government in general, reduce its size and get it to run more efficiently - as well as being the political point man with the oil industry. The overall emphasis was on good "management" and not major policy shifts.
And, overall, until 9/11 this was pretty much of an Administration without a foreign policy... on September 12th, they needed to get one...fast.
Within the broader Republican Party, most were still basking in the sun of Ronald Reagan as the Victor of the Cold War. Aside from sort of generalized dissatisfaction with Marylin "Halfbright" and a perception of weakness in the Clinton administration, "foreign policy" to Republicans was basically defined in terms of dislike of the UN, greater leverage befitting our status as the remaining super power in international organizations (the WTO, et al) and free trade. In actual military terms, Republican interest seemed to be in force modernization and Star Wars...a Reagan legacy.
Now, when a foreign policy was needed, the key players...Cheney and Rumsfeld turned to their staffs...sort of the House intellectuals...the people who were actually policy wonks. And, they found neo-conservatives. People, who without getting into the fine print or messy details, had obtained their jobs through a general agreement with their bosses that the Clinton foreign policy had been a failure and that the United States needed to exercise its power more effectively within the international community. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld are "doers" and not particularly "thinkers." They might know the latest in management techniques, but I doubt either had ever read a book on political theory, or if they had, they skimmed it, took away the facts and never gave it another thought...hurrying back to "doing." But, it was the policy wonks beneath them who had.
In Cheney's office this was "Scooter" Libby. In DoD, it was Paul Wolfwitz and a host of others. Only the State Department had avoided placing neo-cons in policy positions and that didn't matter much to the neo cons, who for the most part considered the State Department useless anyhow.
I suspect that when the histories are written, they may be kinder to Cheney and Rumsfeld than public opinion is now. And, I suspect that both men were largely duped by their own neo-con staffs...the policy wonks. 9/11 required a dramatic statement of U.S. power. I would contend that Afghanistan and the elimination of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden would have sufficed. But the neo cons, assisted by cherry-picked phony intelligence saw 9/11 as an opportunity to fill a vacuum and seize control of U.S. foreign policy...and Rumsfeld and Cheney, not familiar with the neo-con "fine print" went along. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time.
So, to Rumsfeld and Cheney, whom Bush relied almost entirely upon for advice, the adoption of neo-con principles was simply a sort of visceral, knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. For the die-hard neo-cons who advised them, it was confirmation of everything they'd been preaching since John Foster Dulles argued for "roll-back" in Communist Eastern Europe in the post WWII period and the opportunity to bring about a major post World War II change in American foreign policy.
Rove simply tailored the politics to fit. I seriously doubt he had a major input to the foreign policy shift, but merely structured the political arguments around the Cheney/Rumsfeld policies, in the vein of "selling ice to Eskimos."
And so, largely unconsciously, Bush abandoned 50 some years of successful containment policies and multlateralism, isolated us from much of the world and took us into what has delicately come to be known as, "a war of choice."
The "War on Terror," is really in my opinion not so much the issue with the American people as is Iraq - and they've come to understand the difference. The Iraqi prison scandal, the torture scandal and debate, the civil liberties issues regarding surveillance are certainly important collateral issues, but would not be as large as they are without Iraq or the evidence of Administration incompetence - i.e. public opinion would say, "OK...temporarily...but be very, very careful." But faced with a war instituted on false premises and the examples of Katrina, EVERYTHING, now became suspicious and important.
There has been a colassal, but understandable mistake in American foreign policy. And, there is some indication that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld came to acknowledge this during the 2004 election campaign. Most, if not all, of the neo-cons are now gone from government. Quietly, without fanfare they've either been dismissed or, in Wolfwitz's case, kicked upstairs. Their departures are an indication that Republican leadership finally realized what exactly they were being asked to buy into and turned away. The neo-con hijacking of foreign policy failed...and now we have the mess they made to clean-up. It ain't going to be easy...for either Republicans or Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
