May 1, 2004

THE GREAT LIBERATOR


The past month provided us with the opportunity to get more information on how our leadership really thinks and works. First we had Dick Clarke’s book Against All Enemies and his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Clarke was president Clinton’s Chief anti-terrorist officer who had been retained by the Bush administration but had lost his access to the president and was effectively sidelined. In essence Clarke said that the new administration was so absorbed by its preoccupation with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that they ignored, or at least put on the back burner, the gathering threats posed by Osama bin Laden. When the president was briefed on August 6, 2001, while vacationing on his ranch in Texas, and was told that Osama planned to strike at the homeland this did not raise any particular concerns because, “the threat was not specific enough.” August is vacation time anyway one might add.

The administration, especially in the person of Condoleezza Rice, vigorously denied that they had been asleep at the switch or that concerns about terrorist attacks were not taken with the seriousness they should have deserved. Clarke, similar to former Treasury secretary O’Neill, was duly vilified as another disgruntled ex-employee and the Bush people thought that this would suffice. It might have worked but another problem arose with Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack, which essentially corroborated what Clarke and O’Neill had said. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s Defense department were indeed obsessed with Iraq to the exclusion of everything else in foreign affairs. Woodward’s book will be discussed later because other events occurred before its publication.

The Iraq war was not going well, the 9/11 hearings were a potential disaster for re-election, so the decision was made to trot the president out for a news conference where he would present his vision for the future. Since Mr. Bush is not particularly articulate when it comes to spontaneous speech his staff thought it best to immunize him as much as possible by first having him read a 17 minute declaration and then prep him for all the potentially embarrassing questions he might be asked. The speech can be summarized in a few words: We will not yield to terrorists, we will stay the course and we shall prevail. He fully presented a picture of the resolute leader who is embarked on a mission, which has been thrust on him and from which there is no flinching. This is precisely the image Karl Rove has designed for him as will become apparent in the discussion of Woodward’s book. But image is not substance and the real Bush emerged when he was asked by a reporter, “had he had made any mistakes?” The question was open ended and could have referred to 9/11, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Bush was visibly embarrassed, complained that he had not been warned previously that this question might come up, tried to find an answer and eventually said apologetically that he was not quick on his feet. He then asserted that he couldn’t think of a single mistake.

In the meantime the “Silly Season,” as discussed in the March issue, continued in full swing. Florida is regarded as a must win state by the Bush people and no effort is being spared to obtain that state’s electoral votes. This led to a disaster for the Palestinians and an absurdity for cruising sailors.

Sharon is in considerable trouble in Israel. His “unilateral withdrawal plan” from Gaza is vigorously opposed by other members of his own party and in addition he is facing a possible conviction for a bribery scandal. His good friend George immediately rode to the rescue. In a press conference right after the meeting with the Prime Minister he congratulated him to this courageous and historic step. Although not all of the fine print of that unilateral withdrawal is available as yet enough is known to indicate that a fundamental shift in American foreign policy has occurred. Up to that news conference the fiction of America’s evenhandedness in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian war - we have to call it that because it is now more than just a conflict - could be tenuously maintained. This fiction disappeared when Bush gave Sharon a green light for whatever he wants to do in the occupied territories. In Gaza certain Israeli installations will remain; air and coastal waters will be under Israeli control and so will be the border between Gaza and Egypt.  In the West Bank the illegal wall, which in part annexes Palestinian territory, will continue to be built and only a few settlements in the northern part will be removed while the main ones in the heart of the West Bank will stay put. Although Jerusalem was not mentioned the “realities on the ground” will make sure that the Palestinians can shelve any plan for ever having a substantive presence in that city. They can also forget about hopes that DP’s of the 1948 wars, or their descendants, may ever return to their former homes. All of this is, of course, contrary to international law and numerous U.N. resolutions. Having made these concessions Mr. Bush asserted that, “the United States support the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent.” It seems not have occurred to him that he had just torpedoed this idea because Sharon’s plan, which he had so vigorously endorsed a moment earlier, is designed precisely to prevent this from ever happening. For the Palestinians, whose only task, as far as Bush is concerned, is to eliminate terrorism against Israel this is the analogue of Munich, where Chamberlain and Daladier signed away Czechoslovakia to Hitler. Although these two men are now chastised for their cowardice they had at least an excuse because Hitler had threatened them with war for which they were not yet prepared. They did declare war on him one year later. Bush does not have this excuse. Sharon cannot make war on us and the entire despicable performance was merely to gain the Jewish vote for re-election.

But Jews are not the only large swing bloc in Florida which has to be wooed; there is also the Cuban vote that needs to be secured. Now we are really in the theater of the absurd and unless one is a sailor who subscribes to Cruising World or Sail one would never know the height of foolishness this administration will go to in order to win votes.

What follows has not been reported by any of the major news outlets and I found it only in the May 2004 issue of Cruising World. The Editor’s Log states under the title of Bushwhacked:

“On February 26, 2004, in language that American sailors can only describe as stunning, President George W. Bush issued a decree that is unprecedented in both its scope and purpose. Citing his all-encompassing war on terror as the principal impetus behind a proclamation fired straight across the bows of that unlikely band of terrorists – cruising sailors! - Bush granted the Secretary of Homeland Security the immediate power to seize any vessel, at any time, anywhere in the territorial waters of the United States, if for any reason officials believe ‘it may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage in Cuban waters.’”

This is bound to have been the brain child of Karl Rove who unearthed what is called The Espionage Act of June 15, 1917; two months after the U.S. had declared war on Germany! The language cited above comes from that Act. Only the “Whereas” justifications were rewritten specifically for Cuba and the power to board and confiscate vessels is no longer in the hands of the Treasury Department but that of Homeland Security. Since cruising sailors are negligible as a voting bloc but Miami’s Cubans are not, the “Freedom of the Seas” has just been cancelled. Since this act applies not only to U.S. citizens but to “any vessel in any U.S. port,” my Canadian friend Roger, who keeps his catamaran in the Bahamas, better sail directly to Cuba henceforth rather than stopping off in the Florida Keyes where he could lose his boat. The Great Liberator who promises to free the world can now liberate anyone of us even from our own boats!

But the prime event of the month clearly was Woodward’s book and during the week of the 18th – 25th there was not a single day where he did not appear on at least one of the TV talk shows. This attention was justified, and to his credit he stuck to his guns even under tough questioning. Although he did not present much that was news, at least to me, he gave detailed quotes from the key actors and had the documentation to back them up. What emerged was a president who had made up his mind to bring Saddam down as early as November 21, 2001. On that day Bush collared Rumsfeld and told him in utter secrecy to prepare a military plan against Iraq. Instead of following through with the stabilization of Afghanistan, money and military resources were to be diverted to the preparation for an invasion of Iraq.

Woodward is careful throughout the book to point out that Bush had not actually made a firm decision to go to war at that point but he wanted to have the option. Nevertheless, Bush had clearly resolved to bring about “regime change” in Baghdad “one way or another.” The justifications for doing so and the means were left to the future. It was not a matter of “if” but only “when and how.”

There are so many nuggets in this book that it is difficult to select some of the most significant ones but European readers especially will be interested to learn how the “axis of evil” phrase got into the president’s 2002 State of the Union speech. Mr. Bush has a whole stable of speech writers among whom Michael Gerson and David Frum were the most prominent. The speech was meant to put the world on notice that America will no longer wait for attacks to occur but will act preemptively in the future. It was clearly directed against Iraq because as mentioned above military planning was already on its way. On the other hand Bush couldn’t just single out Iraq because that would void all the secrecy so some other way had to be found. This was the problem for which Gerson sought help from Frum. It is not surprising that Frum, who is Jewish, would have come up with the phrase “axis of hate,” since axis and Nazis are synonymous. But Gerson, the evangelical Christian, is not supposed to hate. He is much more concerned, just like the president himself, with evil in this world which has to be eradicated. Thus, the word hate was exchanged for evil. Iran as well as North Korea was added to deflect intentions from the real goal. That is how phrases which galvanize the world come about. 

In regard to the chief players in the run up to the Iraq war, Condoleezza Rice comes across as having been over her head in the power struggle between Colin Powell on the one hand and Cheney-Rumsfeld on the other. Rumsfeld sounds like a bureaucrat who loves to throw out questions but answers few. When he does, the answers tend to be convoluted or “Greenspanesque.” Cheney on the other hand is the Sphinx who has the answer to all the riddles, rarely talks about them in public but when he does he forecloses options. For reasons, which Woodward has not yet explored, Cheney was always firmly bent on war and openly so since his speech in Cincinnati on August 26, 2002. He was dead set against involving the U.N. in a diplomatic solution, favored by Powell, and did his level best to undercut it.

Powell was handicapped by his military background and inherent loyalty to the Commander in Chief. When Bush confronted him on January 13, 2003 point-blank with his plan to invade he raised some warning thoughts, but when asked, “Are you with me?” saluted mentally and said, “Yes, sir, I will support you. I’m with you Mr. President.’” Woodward feels that Powell thought he might still be able to deflect the inevitable but this was, of course, a forlorn hope. It is my opinion that had Powell emerged to his position from civilian, rather than military, life he might have said, “I’m sorry Mr. President I can’t,” and handed in his resignation.

This leaves us with Bush whom Woodward presents in a sympathetic but puzzled vein. He clearly likes the man but it seems equally clear that he cannot subscribe to his policies. Bush is not the European caricature of the “cowboy” but conforms more to the picture of the idealized movie version of the Texas sheriff who rides into town to bring order out of lawlessness. He doesn’t shoot for the heck of it. He is concerned about civilian casualties, but he is on a mission from which nothing, except electoral defeat, will deflect him. Bush believes, as he has said also in public, that he has been sent by God at this time in history to confront and root out the evil in this world, which is summarized in the word terrorists. When asked by Woodward if he had had any doubt before engaging into the war he denied it. No doubt whatsoever. “Had he discussed the pros and cons of the decision with his father?”  “No.” That answer may surely strike one as strange, because the son was embarking on the same war his father had led a decade earlier, but it does make sense when one sees the real human being instead of the “Persona” which is paraded before us.

Karl Rove whose only goal in life at this time is to get Bush re-elected gave him a power point presentation at the ranch during the Christmas holidays in 2002. He wanted Bush to get started on fundraising but the president waved him off with, “We got a war coming, and you’re just going to have to wait.” As Woodward notes the first slide of the presentation as to how Bush was to be portrayed was entitled  PERSONA and it listed in bold letters, “Strong Leader; Bold Action; Big Ideas;  Peace in World; More Compassionate America; Cares About People Like Me; Leads a Strong Team.” This is the background for the “photo-op” on May 1 of last year where the president emerged in full flight combat gear from a Navy jet on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and gave his speech under the sign “Mission Accomplished.” The intended campaign ad will now be fodder for the Democrats.

For those of us who grew up under Hitler this evokes eerie reminiscences. Rove’s phrases were exactly the same Goebbels showered us with and one has to realize that “Leader” translates, of course, into Führer. All that is missing now is the additional adjective of “heissgeliebte” (ardently loved) and the picture is complete. Fortunately this is still America and it won’t come to that. But this is precisely the reason why Europeans are so skeptical about our president’s intentions. They’ve been there, seen the disasters “strong leaders” with “bold ideas” create, and want no part of it.

But as mentioned earlier this is all sham and for public consumption because the real Bush does not conform to it. We saw him in the mentioned press conference where he was flustered when asked about mistakes because nobody had told him that this would be coming. We saw it also when it was announced first that he would not testify before the 9/11 commission at all but later had to relent under public pressure to the point that he would, but only in presence of Dick Cheney! That takes care of the persona right there and his insecurity is also the reason why, in all probability, he did not discuss the intention to go to war with his father. He knew that the father might try to talk him out of this adventure and that was a risk he was not willing to take.

So the American public has to be treated to the fictitious Rove persona who is convinced that it his destiny to “bring freedom to the world.” This will have to be accomplished within maximally five years, because a third term was, thank goodness, eliminated by Eisenhower. In addition there are limits as to who is to be free. As we found out above Palestinians are not necessarily included and the Afghans are also no longer of concern. They have been handed over to the tender mercies of the warlords who profess to fight the Taliban and al Quaeda. Neither are the citizens of a well functioning democracy such as Taiwan assured of their freedom if they wanted to vote for independence from China. They were warned recently to abstain from such dreams. Although we would lodge a protest against China if she were to take military action against the island that would be the extent of our involvement.

So what does all this amount to? The president is motivated by religious fervor, which he actually shares with fundamentalists of other persuasions. The people around him play Realpolitik and use him for whatever suits their purposes. These tend to be the old fashioned ones: lust for power, couched in flowery rhetoric. Unfortunately the Democratic contender falls into the same mold. Not to be outdone by Bush in the grab for the Jewish vote he also immediately embraced the Sharon plan and thereby disqualified himself from being a genuine hope for the future. He stands now exposed as just another politician who will say and do anything to get elected. This is a tragedy because America surely deserves better.

But the world does not stand still for our election antics. While the political parties engage in smearing each other’s candidate the situation in Iraq goes from bad to worse. Our ex-Trotskyite neoconservatives can surely congratulate themselves. They have succeeded in molding us in the image of the state of Israel and we now have our very own West Bank and Gaza. Our troops have been trained by Israelis in counterinsurgency and are using the same methods as the IDF with the same abysmal results. Doors are smashed in, prisoners hooded, adults humiliated in front of their children and homes bulldozed. Due to the lack of security foreign contractors are leaving, the electricity grid is not being improved and a hot summer without adequate air-conditioning is in the offing. That tempers are going to flare and violence is bound to get worse rather than better is utterly predictable.

Our government says that we shall turn sovereignty over to the Iraqis on June 30 but we have our own definition of the word, which does not conform to what is found in a dictionary. We’ll let them do some chores under our supervision but the power will remain in U.S. or, its euphemism, “coalition” hands. This is not likely to work because although we pay lip service to have the U.N. involved we want to keep the contracts and, therefore, the oil, which is the main problem. We would have to let go of the dream of developing the oil resources through Halliburton et al. and really give it back to the Iraqis. It’s their oil after all and not ours.

So far we have not shown the slightest indication that we are indeed willing to make the Iraqis full partners in the reconstruction of their country. Regardless of rhetoric about freedom and democracy “facts on the ground” are created, which tell the Iraqis that we have every intention to continue to run their country from behind the scenes. The largest U.S. embassy is being built in Baghdad which, we have been told, will house up to 3000 employees, although the most recent numbers have been reduced to 1000 Americans and 700 Iraqis. What does Mr. Negroponte need all these people for? Another fact is the contracts, which are bound to irritate the locals. On the Internet one can find a document from the U.S. Department of Commerce on Prime Contracts and Subcontracts awarded for fiscal year 2004, dated March 26, 2004. Of the 52 Prime contracts listed, 45 went to American firms, 3 were joint U.S./U.K ventures; 2 went to Israel, 1 to the UK and 1 to Jordan. The Israelis are supposed to procure armored vehicles and the Jordanians are allowed to deliver fuel to southern Iraq. These are actions Iraqis and the world see, even if the average American doesn’t pay attention to them. This is why we are hated in that part of the world, and why the U.N. is not eager to help us out of the mess our government has created for us.

There seems to be only one honorable exit strategy. The Iraqi army and police have to be reconstituted and given power to establish internal security. If we were indeed willing to turn security in Falluja over to the locals this would  be a good start in the right direction, as long as we don’t insist on having “joint patrols” in that city. American soldiers are regarded as an irritant and if the Iraqis can handle the situation we would be well advised to keep a low profile. If the Falluja experiment were allowed to work it could serve as a model for other “hot spots” where local Iraqis should be fully empowered to provide law and order. The Iraqi interim, and eventually permanent, government would have to be given power to award the contracts for reconstruction of their country to companies of their choosing rather than ours. They will need money and some oversight that it doesn’t go into corrupt hands. We have distributed literally hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to buy ourselves Iraqi informers before the war; surely we could spend a fraction of that amount to let the Iraqis re-build their infrastructure which we helped destroy during it. The Iraqis are proud, intelligent, and educated people. They have the ability to rebuild their country and will do so if we treat them as equals rather than demanding that they do our bidding. When the Iraqis see that we are serious, in our desire to turn their country over to them good will can re-emerge. The violence will subside over time and eventually all of our troops, with the reservists and National Guard first, can come home. This is the way to support our troops and not blind obedience to the dictates of Cheney-Rumsfeld and their neoconservative friends.

Unfortunately this is likely to be pie in the sky because in the real world greed rules and tends to bring the best meant plans to ruin. Nevertheless, it would seem that our great would-be liberator of the people of this world may still have a chance to extricate himself and us from the problems he has created. To do so he would have to abandon his crusading spirit, which has nothing to do with genuine Christianity, relieve Wolfowitz and company of their jobs, and begin to listen and act on the advice of the State rather than the Defense Department. He may well find himself unable to do so. But under those circumstances he is likely to suffer the same fate as his fore-runner Woodrow Wilson who had entered the war ostensibly to create democracy around the world. He won the war but lost the peace at Versailles where he was forced to sacrifice his ideals to the rapaciousness of Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Orlando. Wilson’s example: from being hailed as a savior in November 1918 to a ridiculed irrelevancy a few months later, should surely give our president some food for thought.
 
 
 
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!