July 1, 2003

PRESIDENT BUSH'S CHOICE



Our President has told us that the major military operations in Iraq are over. He has not mentioned the long haul, and the inevitable finger pointing especially since Saddam's feared WMD's have so far eluded detection. Some, who don't particularly like George W, even raised the question from the Nixon era, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" It behooves us, therefore, to inquire how America got into this foreign policy conundrum she finds herself in today.

Every physician knows that there is no one single cause for a given disease or symptom only a confluence of adverse circumstances which bring the patient to the doctor. The same applies to politics. It is true that the ultimate order to invade Iraq was given by the President but it is equally true that it was not his will alone that led him into this fateful decision. When one investigates a great variety of available sources it becomes apparent that there were three major factions at work which exploited the 9/11 tragedy for their pet projects. These were the Neocons, the Oil Industry and President Bush himself. As mentioned in "The Neocons' Leviathan" this group of people thought that the difficult situation the state of Israel finds itself in is equally applicable to the United States and Israel's methods to deal with the Palestinians should now be used in an overall war against world-wide terror. This would supposedly lead to the security not only of Israel but the world at large. Needless to say this is a fantasy. Every cough is not tuberculosis or lung cancer and every national liberation movement is not automatically a danger to the rest of the world. This type of thinking mistakes the method for the purpose and can lead to nothing but tragedies. Under those circumstances our war on terror can never end because aggrieved, obsessed individuals, who have no compunction about creating havoc will always exist. This war is just as unwinnable as the war on poverty. "The poor you will always have with you," Jesus said nearly two thousand years ago and he was right; Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" not withstanding. The civilian Pentagon group who ordered the military, and State Department, around has succeeded in alienating us from the rest of the world and although the troops performed brilliantly in Iraq we are now stuck with the not so brilliant aftermath.

It is no secret that if Saddam had merely sat on sand without oil underneath, he could have tortured his people all he wanted, as some dictators do in Africa, and our policy makers would not have gotten particularly excited. But the world, not just America, runs on oil and it is regarded as intolerable that some miscreants can control some of the spigots. Even if America were not dependent on Middle East oil the rest of the world is and if the global economy were to fall into a 1930's type depression America could not escape from it either. So the idea was that since we can't trust this "madman," Saddam has to be gotten rid of and we will take over the flow of oil for the benefit of the rest of the world. That Vice President Cheney's as well as President Bush's friends are standing to make a hefty buck in the process is just icing on the cake.

All that might, however, not have been enough if someone else but Bush had sat in the Oval Office. For him it was personal. Saddam had to go. The son had to finish what the father had supposedly left undone twelve years earlier. In addition Saddam "had tried to kill my daddy." Whether or not that piece of intelligence was true, or belonged into the realm of the babies who were thrown out of their incubators when the Iraqis invaded Kuwait, no one knows. But the truth is irrelevant because people act on their beliefs and the dictum is: don't confuse me with facts! For Bush his mission in life was clear, "crush Saddam." In this obsession, because that is what it was, and that is why the WMDs were merely a convenient pretext, he followed the model of his hero Sir Winston to whom I devoted the June installment. Up to September 1939 Churchill had been floundering but when he became Prime Minister he defined his mission, "I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby." Getting rid of Hitler was a worthy enterprise but by what means and at what cost? Churchill's stated method was, "to set Europe ablaze." When Churchill said in November of 1942 "I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," he had no idea that this would be precisely the outcome of his policies. Hitler knew it, Stalin knew it, Roosevelt knew it but poor Churchill didn't. He was obsessed with Hitler and nothing else mattered until Teheran in 1943 and especially Yalta in 1945 when he got an inkling of what he had wrought.

This brings me to the title of this installment. It was no accident, because in my readings I had also come across a book by Churchill published in 1937 entitled Great Contemporaries. One does not find Stalin there but Adolf earned a short chapter, "Hitler and his Choice." It is worth while reading, as is all the literature written by foreigners and published in non-German countries prior to September 1939. The post-WWII literature tends to be dominated by the Jewish tragedy and, therefore, presents only a partial picture of pre-war Germany. Churchill starts his chapter with

"It is not possible to form a just judgment of a public figure who has attained the enormous dimensions of Adolf Hitler until his life work as a whole is before us. Although no subsequent political action can condone wrong deeds, history is replete with examples of men who have risen to power by employing stern, grim, and even frightful methods, but who, nevertheless, when their life is revealed as a whole, have been regarded as great figures whose lives have enriched mankind. So may it be with Hitler.

Such a final view is not vouchsafed to us today [an asterisk states "written in 1935"]. We cannot tell whether Hitler will be the man who will once again let loose upon the world another war in which civilization will irretrievably succumb, or whether he will go down in history as the man who restored honour and peace to the great Germanic nation and brought it back serene, helpful and strong, to the forefront of the European family circle. It is on this mystery of the future that history will pronounce. It is enough to say that both possibilities are open at the present moment If, because the story is unfinished, because, indeed, its most fateful chapters have yet to be written, we are forced to dwell upon the darker side of his work and creed, we must never forget nor cease to hope for the bright alternative."

Apart from the flowery rhetoric we must keep in mind that the year was 1935 when he made the following allegations,

"It was not till 1935 that the full terror of this revelation [that Hitler had begun to re-arm Germany] broke upon the careless and imprudent world, and Hitler casting aside concealment, sprang forward armed to the teeth, with his munition factories roaring night and day, his aeroplane squadrons forming in ceaseless succession, his submarine crews exercising in the Baltic, and his armed hosts tramping from one end of the broad Reich to the other. That is where we are today, and the achievement by which the tables have been completely turned upon the complacent, feckless and purblind victors deserves to be reckoned a prodigy in the history of the world, and a prodigy which is inseparable from the personal exertions and life-thrust of a single man."

This review of the past is important, because this is precisely how history is made. We can take the statements printed above as those of a o prophetic visionary or as self-fulfilling prophecies. By this I mean that Churchill would do his level best to prevent "the bright alternative" from coming to pass. For Churchill the problem with Hitler was just as personal as Saddam was for Bush. Let us, therefore look in more detail at the facts as they existed in 1935. If Churchill had read Mein Kampf, which would have been his duty as a statesman who wants to understand the other side, he would have known that the abolition of the Versailles treaty was the number one priority in Hitler's program. Not only did Germany's pre 1914 borders have to be reconstituted but all German speaking people in Central Europe had to be incorporated in the new Reich. Furthermore, Hitler was quite explicit that he did not expect this to result from the good will of other countries. It was bound to involve armed struggle for which the nation had to be fully prepared. But the thrust, as he repeatedly emphasized, was to the East where Lebensraum was to be found. All he wanted from the West was to be left alone in the pursuit of this goal. These plans were no secrets, they were known to anybody who wanted to know since 1925.

The statement that by 1935, or even 1937, the tables had been turned on the victors by the military might of Germany was false. The Franco-British-Czech- Polish alliance, even leaving aside the Soviet Union, was far superior to anything Hitler could put into the field as late as 1939. As far as the roaring munitions factories are concerned Hitler had at the beginning of the Poland campaign munitions for no more than about a month. Even in May of 1940 only about 15 per cent of German industry was specifically devoted for arms procurement. Hitler did not plan for a long war! The "exercising submarines" consisted of a total of 57 in September 1939 and in 1940 only 22 were operational in the North Atlantic. While propagandists and politicians keep, on the one hand, exaggerating Hitler's early military might they keep repeating on the other hand the idea fostered by Churchill that he was the lone voice in the wilderness whose pleas were ignored while "England slept." When one reads Clive Ponting, for instance, it becomes obvious that England did not sleep during Hitler's arms build-up. The British government had made a decision to gear its level of armaments to the likelihood of a major war within the next ten years. This policy was adopted in 1919 and extended to another ten years in 1929. But in 1933 when Hitler took power in Germany the pace was increased and Britain was made ready for war within six years i.e. April 1939. There was good reason for this type of thinking. Timing was essential. If the country was fully mobilized too early the equipment would become obsolete and in the other case one would be unprepared. As it turned out the Brits guessed right.

But this was, of course, not just a lucky guess it was based on solid knowledge. The basic fact was that Hitler had to start from scratch in 1933 because Germany had been forcibly and completely disarmed as a result of Versailles. The French, the Italians, the Czech, and others not only refused to cut their post 1919 forces but kept building more and more modern arms. This was the imbalance Hitler was confronted with. In 1933 he had an army of 100,000 men. There was no heavy artillery, not a single tank and no plane. It was clearly impossible to defend the country, or to gain the respect of the world, and enforce legitimate demands with this type of an army. In addition, the heavy industry to build new arms was not yet available either. Although the Reichswehr had bypassed some of the Versailles restrictions by training pilots and tank crews in the Soviet Union even prior to 1933 nobody, not even Hitler, could create a modern army, within two years, of the proportions Churchill talked about. It was pure propaganda to scare the British public.

What the fear of weapons of mass destructions is today was long range bombers in the nineteen thirties. It was actually Hermann Göring who had proposed the idea of "Shock and Awe," because he believed that the war of the future would be won within hours or days by overwhelming air power. This was one of his typical bragging, blustering statements which was proven wrong. So was the one that he would build such air defenses that no enemy bomber could ever penetrate German skies, and in 1942 that he could supply the encircled troops in Stalingrad by air. To Westerners he kept bragging in the thirties about the strength of his Luftwaffe, which did not correspond to the facts but was, of course, grist for the propaganda mills on both sides of the channel.

Churchill began to spread the fear in the House of Commons as early as 1934 when he announced that the Luftwaffe would be able to threaten London with massive bombing within 18 months. This would have put it into the fall of 1935! The serious buildup of the Luftwaffe did not start until spring 1935 and there was a shortage of everything, planes, equipment to make them, and most of all trained pilots which led to marked accident rates early on. In July of 1934 Churchill declared that by 1936 the superiority of the Luftwaffe planes would be such that Britain would never be able to make up this lead. On November 28 of that year he stated that by 1937 the Luftwaffe size would be double that of the RAF. This was nonsense. Although the RAF was numerically somewhat inferior in planes to the Luftwaffe in August of 1940, it had more and better trained pilots. In addition German fighters could stay over southeastern England for only about twenty five minutes. The RAF on the other hand was fighting over home territory and could, therefore, recover the pilots who had to bail out as well as repair damaged aircraft, an option which was not available to the Germans. Furthermore, the Luftwaffe, in contrast to the RAF, was designed primarily to support the troops on the ground rather than for long-range bombing of cities. As such it was inadequate for the task when the decision was made to bomb London, rather than continue with the destruction of airfields, during the Blitz. Hitler was goaded into this mistake by Churchill who had started bombing Berlin.

I am mentioning all of this because the real history of WWII and its antecedents are being supplanted by myths, and myths rather than facts are the staple of politicians and media hacks who control our fate. How many of us still remember the "missile gap" between the Soviet Union and the U.S. with which Kennedy squeezed out a narrow victory over Nixon in 1968? It was non-existent; but who wants to be reminded? This brings us right back to Saddam and his WMDs which in all probability fall into the same genre of misinformation for ulterior motives.

So where do we stand today and what is Bush's choice?

Although Churchill stated that Hitler had a choice in 1935 this was only partially true. Hitler had made too many powerful enemies abroad which would not let him execute his program, even at the cost of a world war. In addition his vindictive and ultimately self-destructive character stood in the way. These aspects do not apply to President Bush. Nevertheless, after the Iraq invasion he has to make a choice in regard to his future foreign policy. He can take the easy way out let things slide and basically run for re-election on his successes. When the road map collapses, as it inevitably will, the Palestinians can be blamed because I sincerely doubt that no further attacks on Israelis are going to take place even within the proposed three months truce. This will let Bush off the hook and he can wash his hands of the affair to the applause of his main, but narrow, constituency. If by September 2004 either the economy is still in trouble, or some other unforeseen disaster occurs he can, egged on by Karl Rove and the neocons, initiate another "pre-emptive war" to assure electoral victory. I do not believe that the President lied to us about Saddam's WMDs. He was honestly misled by people whom he should not have trusted. It was a mistake and a mistake can be forgiven but persisting in mistakes can not.

The other choice is considerably more difficult and would require strength of character Bush may or may not have. He would have to put thoughts of re-election totally out of his mind and look objectively at the situation the U.S. finds itself in vis á vis the world as a result of his two and a half years in office. The required course of action would then become apparent. He would come to realize that a small high tech army can win against a third world type military force but is insufficient to secure the peace. This is why the Chief of the German General Staff, von Seeckt, had argued in 1933 not only for a small professional army which could quickly conquer enemy territory, but an additional militia which subsequently performs the occupation duties. He was overruled by Hitler who was enamored with vast numbers. Nevertheless, the concept was correct and this is now Bush's and the Pentagon's dilemma in Iraq. The neocons insisted that America can go it alone when it comes to winning wars. But now when our troops are facing a guerilla type war they want others to help out. All of our high tech weaponry is useless for an occupation which the locals want to get rid of. This should have been the lesson of Israel's experience on the West Bank and Gaza but nobody, including our president, wants to admit to this. If Max Boot's article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs is correct that we have only 10 full time active duty divisions in the army and the rest of manpower, apart from the Marines and the other services, has to be made up by the National Guard and reservists, our "pre-emptive" wars can never be successful in the true sense of the word. We can devastate countries but we can not occupy them and turn them into democracies. The required manpower is not available. Reservists and National Guard unit members have civilian jobs and will not be enamored to act as "peace keepers" for extended tours of duty. Army enlistments are also likely to fall off when the goal of the soldier is clearly defined as: to wage war! This means "to smash things and kill people," rather than a cheap way to get a college education and "be all that you can." Under these circumstances the draft may look mighty appealing to policy makers although the Vietnam experience would strongly argue against it. Americans are not militaristic by nature and to turn out the necessary legions in order to change regimes on a world wide basis will not be to their liking. This is where the analogy to Rome breaks down and the inherent weakness of our superpower status is exposed.

Keeping the foregoing in mind Bush would have to repudiate the neocons' idea of the "Hobbesian anarchic world" which requires perpetual wholesale regime changes. He would have to pledge to work within the framework of the UN to defuse, by diplomatic means, the looming genuine threats to international security. He would have to separate the war against terror from local wars of liberation and, most importantly, tone down this constant belligerent rhetoric which threatens everybody who does not share our views. The war against international terrorist networks is, as has always been maintained in these pages, a job for international police and intelligence work, and our military cannot be expected to win this type of war. It's not the job they are trained for. This international police effort requires, however, good will from the rest of the world and if we keep treating other countries in the way we have during this past year, they may simply say: If you want to do things your way go ahead, we can't stop you, but don't expect us to bail you out when you're in trouble. President Bush would also have to come to realize that International Law exists and just as no person can be above the law, no country should be either. A Nuremberg type court which hangs the defeated but ignores the crimes of the victors will not do in the long run. Instead of harping on our standing as the only superpower, which enforces its will upon the rest of the world, we should be satisfied with the status of primus inter pares.

Finally there is the "road map" to which the president supposedly has committed himself but his heart isn't in it. He was dragged into it by Tony Blair to get the Iraq "coalition" going. There is no evidence that Bush truly understands the plight of the Palestinians and unless he begins to do so no peace is achievable in the Holy Land. A disjointed Palestinian state which retains major Israeli settlements and cedes large portions of the Jordan valley to Israel will never be acceptable to the locals. At best such a Versailles type "peace treaty" will be an armistice. The only genuine peace would require steps which have repeatedly been mentioned in previous installments on this site. They include the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state with full sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza, direct access through Palestinian rather than Israeli territory, and complete evacuation of all Israeli settlements which have been built on Palestinian land since 1967. Nothing else has a genuine chance for peace. Last year Bush chided the UN for not enforcing its resolutions against Iraq. Now he would have to take Sharon to task for ignoring the numerous UN resolutions against Israel. Neither Sharon nor any other Israeli government will ever voluntarily agree to the steps outlined above in order to secure genuine peace for Israel. Bush would have to go before the nation, tell the American people the unvarnished truth about what really goes on every day in the occupied territories of Palestine and then announce that unless and until Israel fully conforms to the existing UN resolutions no further American tax money will be forthcoming. Americans are a fair minded people and when the facts are presented to them truthfully they will respond and support him in this effort, certain special interest groups notwithstanding. This would show the world that the president is a man of his word. American prestige would be restored and international cooperation would blossom again.

Time is running out, another election is around the corner and the president must make a decision, which is actually quite straightforward: continue on the present course for the sake of not alienating his main constituency or put principle above electioneering. We are told that he already has more money for the election than all the other Democratic candidates combined and if he were to show himself a statesman by taking at least some of the steps outlined above his personal popularity, which has remained high, may well let him overcome the hostile criticism which is bound to arise.

Mister President: Although I am going to fax this article to the White House I have no illusions that your staff will allow you to read it. Nevertheless, I must remind you that you have been told "The truth will make you free!" Try it, it'll work for you personally and the good of the world. On the other hand you can follow the dictum of Winston Churchill who said that, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." Under those circumstances you will allow the country to be inundated in the next year and a half with a continued flood of exaggerations, if not outright lies, geared to create fear in the hearts of Americans and the world. This in turn will in the long run pave the way to a general and much more devastating war. Das habe ich nicht gewollt, I did not want that; the Kaiser said when he saw what his 1914 policies had contributed to. Neither had Hitler wanted a world war in 1939 but that is what he got. One does not unleash the dogs of war without running the risk of getting severely bitten oneself, is the main lesson history provides. Therefore, the overriding question of our time is: Are you and your advisors willing to learn this simple truth?
 
 
 
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!