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.