December 1, 2002

WANTED: GOOD JUDGMENT!



The week of November 3-9 was surely a highlight in our President's life. On November 5 the country gave him control of both houses of Congress and on November 8 the UN Security Council passed unanimously a resolution to force UN inspectors on a reluctant Iraq. The carrot and stick approach as outlined in the previous installment worked. Apparently the administration promised Putin free hand in Chechnya, trade concessions to the Chinese, and the Syrians would have received the stick had they not "played ball."

The question now is: what will our President do with all this power which has been bestowed upon him? The measure of his character will become apparent in the next few months. By March we will know whether the mentioned week was one highlight or a watershed, and the zenith of his achievements. Judging by the rumblings emanating from Washington it seems that our President is intent on a war with Iraq, come what may. Plan A the October 15 "surprise" air drop attack was shelved as too risky, and as it turned out it wasn't necessary anyway. Now it's on to Plan B. This seems to combine Plan A with initial bombing, ground invasion and generous bribes of local Iraqi opposition leaders. It had worked after all in Afghanistan, so why wouldn't it work in Iraq? seems to be the logic.

But has it worked in Afghanistan? On September 14, 2001 three days after the tragedy, I sent a brief article to the Salt Lake Tribune entitled "Justice or Revenge?" In it I strongly argued for the former and against the latter. I wrote

"Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that we obliterate the Taliban regime will that be the end of terrorism? Of course not. Fanatics are simply going to move to another 'rogue state' and in addition destabilize those regimes in the Middle East which are currently friendly to the U.S.

Furthermore, bin Laden's demise will not automatically create 'peace on earth, good will to men.' There are enough drug lords with 'deep pockets' who can support any number of groups who carry a grudge against the United States. To start a war is easy to end one is difficult as Lyndon Johnson found out in Vietnam."

I also argued that the causes and not only the symptoms must be treated and one of them surely is the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian disaster. While clearly not the only cause, our unconditional support of the Likud government and its repressive policies in the occupied territories are certainly a contributory factor for the hatred some Arabs feel against our government. I counseled reason which punishes the perpetrators of the 9/11 disaster while we address at the same time legitimate grievances others might have against our policies. Since this type of argument ran against the grain of prevailing passions the article was never published.

Little did I know that this proposed program never had a ghost of a chance as the recent book by Bob Woodward Bush at War clearly demonstrates. Anyone who still harbors any illusions about how our government really functions should read this book. Even on September 11 Bush had already accepted the premise that the al-Qaeda attack was an act of war which can only be responded to by massive military retaliation. Limited strikes against the perpetrators combined with patient police work to uncover terrorist cells around the world were never regarded as an option. Patience is not yet an American virtue. Immediate and spectacular action was demanded by the President. The idea was that we wouldn't do it "like the Soviets," going in with massive ground forces, but we'd use our air power and let the locals do the fighting. To this end "Gary," our highest level CIA clandestine operations chief was dispatched to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan on September 19 with a select group of "special ops" and a suitcase containing $3 Million in $100 denominations. He liberally dispensed the cash among the warlords as a down payment with another $10 Million to follow. They could use the money any way they pleased and he also promised them the blue from the sky how we would subsequently rebuild their country on a lavish scale.

As we all know Phase I worked superbly well but we are now in Phase II which is, somewhat similar to the situation the Soviets found themselves in 1979. The Afghan government, which they supported, had lost control of the countryside to the mujahadeen who thoroughly detested the atheistic practices of the Soviet style regime and wanted to establish an Islamic republic. Once the USSR invaded the country, the CIA sprang into action with money and equipment. The rest, as the say, is history including the creation of our erstwhile friend Osama.

Now fast forward to the end of 2002. We have a friendly government in Kabul but Karzai, the President, requires American bodyguards because he can't trust his own people to protect him. Although the countryside is not yet in open rebellion, the Americans are not seen as liberators but as another materialistic culture which exploits the locals for their own gain. Burqa or veil is still the traditional garb for women; definitely outside Kabul and to some extent even in the capital. As a female Afghan Supreme Court Justice found out: democracy has limits. When she returned to her country after having been photographed at the White House with President Bush, without wearing a veil she was promptly sacked by her government. Afghanistan is after all officially an Islamic State and the Commission which is to write a new constitution is headed by a judge who is in favor of sharia, Islamic law. When a group of about 2000 students recently protested against their miserable living conditions in the dorms (e.g. broken windows, massive overcrowding, no heat, no electricity etc.), they were met with gun fire which killed three and wounded several others. As one student ruefully commented, "We thought this was a real democracy. We didn't know we could be killed for demonstrating. Otherwise we wouldn't have done it."

Thus nation building, an idea our President thoroughly denounced while still a candidate for office, is still not to his liking. Our resources instead of being used to build up what we helped smash are being diverted against Iraq. We are thus paving the way not only for another Afghanistan quagmire, but a similar one in Iraq when Saddam has been successfully deposed. Apparently the idea is that we'll let our allies pick up the pieces afterwards.

The average person keeps asking oneself: why this obsession with Iraq? It not only threatens to ruin any hope we may have for rebuilding Afghanistan in the near future, but is also bound to destabilize the Mid-East. This is where Bob Woodward's book comes in again. Immediately after 9/11 Bush was urged to go not only after the Taliban and Osama who is referred to in Washington circles as UBL (first name Usama) but also Saddam Hussein. Bush correctly resisted because he feared that this loss of focus might not resonate with the American people. He wanted first UBL's head. After that was done and the Taliban were finished it would be Iraq's turn. This decision was already made in the first two weeks after 9/11. The order to go after UBL's head was taken literally, if we can trust Bob Woodward. Cofer Black, the CIA's Director of the Counterterrorism Center ordered advance team chief Gary with his $3 million suitcase to bring him bin Laden's "head in a box." When Gary was surprised because this violated the rules the CIA had been operating under and questioned the order, he was told by Black, "I want to take it down and show the president." Woodward continues that when Gary signaled the team's safe arrival in Afghanistan "mindful of Cofer Black's request about bin Laden's head, he added a line to the cable requesting some heavy-duty cardboard boxes and dry ice, and if possible some pikes."

Is that really how our highest level administrators see their jobs or did Woodward fall for a joke that was played on him? We don't know, of course, but what is not a joke is that our buildup in the Gulf for the upcoming war with Iraq proceeds according to the Afghan model and we are buying ourselves now an Iraqi opposition army of Kurds. But the army we are buying ourselves is not wanted by other Iraqis and our latest opposition leader beneficiary is, according to the Christian Science Monitor, the ex-General Secretary of the Iraqi Communist Party, Ballahadeen Nouri. Never mind, that ordinary Iraqis neither trust him nor any other opposition leader. Marching on we must because our Commander in Chief says so and as Woodward wrote: his decisions are not to be questioned. As he told Woodward personally, “‘I’m not a textbook player. I'm a gut player.' “He also stated, “‘I’m the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation.'"

Well, I guess that attitude seems to take care of the Gettysburg address. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" may become obsolete as we enter the era of unending war against terrorism and "Homeland Security." The measures designed to "protect us," and which are already on the books, will give the government unfettered access to complete information about our private lives. Lady Liberty may soon wonder about what has happened to the country whose entrance she guards.

It is reasonable to ask now who this President we elected 2 years ago is. Chris Matthew's recent book American presents us with a quote of candidate George W. Bush from December 1999, "Let us reject the blinders of isolationism, just as we have refused the crown of empire. Let us not dominate others with our power or betray them with our indifference. And let us have an American foreign policy that reflects American character. The modesty of true strength. The humility of real greatness." Is that the President we have now? It seems that during the run-up for election Mr. Bush wasn't quite sure what he would do with his presidency if he won, but 9/11 gave him an opportunity which is now being relentlessly exploited. He decided right then and there that he would be "a war time president" and this would be the all consuming direction of his administration. The war is limitless and will stretch even beyond his term. I guess the speech writer who was responsible for the above cited quote is out of a job now.

Since the President seems determined to have his war it'll only need the pretext, as mentioned in previous installments. This can be readily manufactured because on the one hand the conditions imposed on Saddam are sufficiently stringent that any minor breach of compliance can be exploited and on the other hand the "no fly zones" are ready made for excuses not only to bomb but to create incidents when needed. We in the U.S. have accepted the "no fly zones" as our right conferred upon us by the UN Security council. Little do most of us realize that this was supposed to have been a temporary arrangement in 1991 for humanitarian reasons. They were intended to prevent Saddam from punishing the Shiite rebels in the south and the Kurds in the north, when his regime was threatened in the aftermath of the first Gulf war. That has, of course, fallen by the wayside a long time ago and we, jointly with the Brits, are now happily bombing air defense installations in preparation for the upcoming war. This one will, of course, also be fought for humanity's sake because the "monster" and "madman" who has WMDs and has gassed his own people must be eliminated. That our money bought him the gas and that the Reagan administration was not averse to Saddam's use of it against the Iranians and their allies the Kurds in the Iran-Iraq war must not be remembered. Neither should we remember that the icon of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, also had no compunction about advocating the gassing of people, although he was in favor of non-lethal agents. Geoff Simon quotes Churchill in Iraq: >From Sumer to Saddam as having said, "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes." This was at the time when the Kurds were in open rebellion against the British Empire which had shouldered the "White Man's Burden" and was intent on bringing Western values to the dismembered Ottoman Empire. Wing Commander Gale of RAF Squadron 30 in Iraq is also quoted to have said after the bombing campaign, "If the Kurds hadn't learned by our example to behave themselves in a civilised way then we had to spank their bottoms. This was done by bombs and guns." For the British Empire "to behave in a civilized way" was "do as you are told" and forget about any aspirations of nationhood, which had been implanted into their minds by our very own President Wilson. The British found out the hard way that their type of nation-building didn't work in the long run, either in Afghanistan or in Iraq, but Tony Blair is eager to forget the past and hopes that the U.S. will do better. That this hope is hardly justified by history and the currently existing facts doesn't seem to bother the Bush-Blair "Axis of Good."

In the second paragraph I have mentioned that the next few months will tell what kind of a man George W. Bush really is. The jury is still out and this is why I have composed this little poem in the style of Aeschylus

To Our King George II

A bush thou art, Alas no tree.

Yet Fortune lifted thee

High above all other men.

Power undreamed of eons before

Is yours; but not forever more.

Two years, or maybe six,

And you'll return to Texan sticks.

What deeds you do in this allotted span;

The choices made, for good or ill of man,

Are yours alone, with no one else to blame.

Let, therefore, this your warning be:

Brute force does serve expediency;

Yet in its wake the victimized

Will shout for vengeance; always highly prized.

Unless obstinacy does to wisdom yield,

And friendly counsels rule the field,

The seeds you sow no good will bring.

And of your downfall future bards will sing.
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!