October 1, 2003

IGNORANT ARROGANCE




September was the month when the races for political power started to gather steam. In California we saw a popular attempt to recall the sitting governor blocked by a three panel judge’s vote. But that vote was overturned a few days later by 11 judges and the recall election is on again for October 7. The mere fact that a few appointed judges have the potential power to nullify the constitutionally guaranteed expression of the wishes of 1.6 million Californians should give us pause to reconsider what kind of a republic we have become. Needless to say our current President was actually also anointed by one vote of a Supreme Court Justice, and that it is the Supreme Court, made up of political appointees, who decides what the "law of the land" is at a given moment.

Nevertheless some of us, including myself and most members of my family who had actually voted for Mr. Bush, welcomed this particular Supreme Court decision because we thought he would bring to the White House: honesty, common sense and a foreign policy which works in concert with the UN on the problems of this world. This illusion was fostered further by the people governor Bush surrounded himself with. The designated Vice-President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State seemed to be men of experience and substance who had served honorably in his father's presidency.

But appearances were deceiving. We did not know at that time that Mr. Cheney's interests seem to have remained wedded to the oil industry, and it became apparent that Mr. Rumsfeld's defense policies did not originate within himself but reflected the views of a small group of neocons whose political outlook equates the policies to be adopted by the United States with those of Israel, as has been pointed out here in "The Neocons' Leviathan." This group disdained the professionals at the State Department and General Powell, as a good soldier, took his orders from his Commander in Chief, who had also fallen under their spell. This led to the sad spectacle earlier in the year where Powell presented evidence to the UN about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction which neither he nor CIA director Tenet, who was there for moral support, probably fully believed in. What we saw on that day was what might have been regarded as a lack of Zivilcourage, namely standing up for one's principles of truth and integrity and refraining from making allegations based on dubious evidence. Although General Powell had resigned from the army and the president could no longer order him around he failed to draw the consequences from the fact that his position had become untenable because foreign policy was made in the Defense rather than the State Department. Had he quit his job he might well have put the rush to war on hold, especially if the General had given open and full testimony before Congress how his position had been undermined by the civilians in the Pentagon. The fact that he chose instead to support the administration, possibly against his better judgment, makes him, unfortunately, co-responsible for the current tribulations of the "liberated" Iraqi people, the deaths and injuries of our soldiers, as well as of thousands of innocent Iraqis, loss of America's prestige throughout major portions of the world and the staggering financial burdens Americans are now saddled with.

The ultimate responsibility for the conduct of America's foreign policy lies, of course, with the president, and it is no secret that he has little use for diplomacy but favors the approach advocated by the group of Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz etc. Had the 9/11 terrorist attack not occurred he might have served out his presidency with little fanfare, because Americans are not a belligerent people. Live and let live tends to be their maxim, in addition to being generous to those who are less fortunate than us. A foreign policy which defies international law and invades other countries in a "pre-emptive" manner tends to be against the image they have of themselves. There is a caveat, however, because our politicians have always played by the rules of power while cloaking them in moral phraseology. The Spanish-American war which set America on the road to empire was ostensibly over the Spaniards sinking our battleship Maine in Havana harbor, although the inquest failed to establish Spanish guilt in this naval tragedy. The reason for invading Cuba was not merely the "liberation of the Cuban people from a ruthless dictatorship," as advocated by what was then called the yellow press. It is also worth while remembering that before there ever was a "Butcher of Baghdad," the American public was introduced to "Butcher Weyler," who was the Spanish general in charge of rooting out the insurgency. In 1896 the Hearst press showered him also with epithets such as, "a fiendish despot, a brute, the devastator, pitiless cold, an exterminator of men."

The rebellion of nationalist Cubans, who used what is now called terror tactics, severely interfered with the profits of the sugar cane industry and that could not be tolerated. In addition some political circles had for a long time cast a desirous eye on the island and even Thomas Jefferson had written, "I have ever looked at Cuba as the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States." Since American public opinion always rooted for the underdog the invasion of Cuba was preordained regardless of the steps Spain took subsequently to ameliorate the situation. But Spain also had other overseas colonies especially the Philippines and those folks had to be liberated too in order to receive the blessings of Christianity. The fact that the vast majority were already Catholics was apparently unknown. But who can blame President McKinley who, although a very well meaning person, couldn't even find the Philippines on a map. Just as Cuban exile groups in New York had urged America's entry into their war, Philippine exile groups entreated Admiral Dewey, who happened to be in Hong Kong with his fleet, to sail into Manila Bay destroy the Spanish fleet and then hand a freed country over to them. Dewey did the first part but could not follow through with the second. The "splendid little war," as John Hay, U.S. ambassador to London, had put it in a letter to Teddy Roosevelt in the summer of 1898, was soon over in the Caribbean with little loss of American lives. But it turned subsequently into a prolonged bloody battle in the Philippine archipelago which lasted for six years until peace was established. America's goal in the Philippines as outlined by President McKinley was to create a government "designed not for our satisfaction nor for our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace and prosperity of the people of the Philippine islands." This language strikes one also as eerily familiar. But the Muslim Moros in the island of Mindanao wanted no part of infidel rule in 1904 and kept on fighting intermittently. It took about fifty years before the liberated Filipinos were deemed worthy to run their own country and lo and behold a hundred years later we are still, or again, fighting Muslim terrorists in those islands.

The information and quotes mentioned above can be found in Ivan Musicant's Empire By Default. The Spanish-American War and the Dawn of the American Century.The American people were goaded into empire building by claims of Spanish villainy and a threat to our shores, just as the so-called attack on our ships in the gulf of Tonkin led us into an expanded Vietnam war. Now the charge that Saddam was in cahoots with terrorists, who would unleash weapons of mass destruction on us at any moment, brought us into Iraq for an unforeseeable period of time.

The rhetoric of creating fear, which has to be overcome by a determined course of forceful righteousness, has remained the same and so has the ignorance of how other people live and what their real aspirations are. Uncle Sam knows best and his views have to be enforced. When others, as for instance some ingrate Europeans, like France and Germany, demur they are being given the stark alternative of "if you are not with us, you are against us." In the self-proclaimed war on terror there is no middle ground and people who do not see "the moral clarity" of our cause are not only potential enemies but also evil. Thus one should hardly be surprised over headlines "France: Friend or Foe?" and "Saudi Arabia: Friend or Enemy?" Simplifications like these are to be expected when one considers the background of the people who write these articles, or as in the case of our president write his speeches. Now we come to a remarkable observation. President Bush is apparently disinclined to read even newspapers or magazines in order to form his own opinions. As he said in a recent interview with Brit Hume of Fox News, "I glance at the headlines just to kind of a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves. But like Condoleeza, in her case, the national security adviser is getting her news directly from the participants on the world stage [www.foxnews.com]." Leaving the mangled syntax aside this is surely a remarkable statement by the "leader of the free world." He tells us in essence that he relies entirely on precooked and pre-digested ideas of others who feed him what they think he should know and, what is worse; he seems to have no inclination to get independent verification. I believe that this explains his foreign policy conduct and how he came up, for instance, with the idea that "Sharon is a man of peace." Yes, but on whose terms?

Since Bush's staff shields him from people with divergent views and the president himself has apparently never been out of the country as a simple tourist his views of the world are severely restricted. When one adds to this the fact that he regards himself as a "born again Christian," we can understand why he could so easily fall prey to those elements in the government who seized on the 9/11 tragedy to enact their foreign policy ideas which are in essence those of the Likud party in Israel. When this is coupled with a Bush-Cheney background in the oil industry it is hardly surprising that Iraq had to be invaded regardless of whatever cooperation Saddam may or may not have extended to UN inspectors. It was literally a "done deal" by last September and it has been reported that Halliburton (whose CEO Mr. Cheney was before he assumed his present job) had already received in November 2002 a "no bid contract" to rebuild Iraq's oil industry after the war. The entire UN performance in the fall and winter of last year was not designed to prevent the war but merely to get UN approval for something that had already been unilaterally decided on.

The president prides himself on being a strong leader and he certainly reads the speeches, prepared by unknown writers, quite well. It is, however, highly instructive for a neurologist to watch his body language and syntax when he is speaking spontaneously during rare press conferences or interviews with members of the media. While trying to a give a strong impression and making positive statements his head turns at the same time not up and down in the manner of saying yes, but from side to side which seems to negate what he is saying. This body language is, of course, totally unconscious and raises a question of inner insecurity hidden behind a facade of official bravado. When his detractors pointed out, prior to the November 2000 election, that he may not possess the stuff that is required for a president of the country, we dismissed the idea as malevolent gossip but in retrospect it may well have been correct.

The president seems to be a simple person with oversimplified ideas and thereby became the ideal tool for others who have more complex and occasionally devious minds. This is where his main constituency the "Christian Right" comes in. I suggested earlier this year in "President Bush's Choice" that he had to choose between statesmanship and running for re-election. These are mutually incompatible goals. When I wrote the installment I sensed, of course, what his choice was likely to be and now there is no longer any doubt. Re-election demands that Evangelical Christians must not be alienated. This means in turn that any "leaning on Israel" to grant the Palestinians their rights is out of the question. One of the leaders of the Christian Right, Pat Robertson, recently gave an interview which was published in part in the September 19, 2003 edition of The Jerusalem Post. The headline was "Cross his heart. When US televangelist Pat Robertson talks, millions of Americans listen. And what he's telling George W. Bush is to beware of dividing the land of Israel and creating a Palestinian state." In the introduction to the interview we find, "As far as Robertson is concerned Bush is playing with fire, and making what he considers to be a 'terrible mistake.' To the interviewer's question "do you think that American Christians in 2004 should take that [the division of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state] when deciding whom to vote for into consideration?" Robertson replied diplomatically, "I think they will, but the problem is between two people." Robertson explained that if Bush's opponent is going to be a liberal Democrat who "is as bad or worse on Israel than he [Bush] is," the evangelicals will have no choice but to stick with Bush regardless of the road map. The unspoken conviction is that they will make sure it won't go anywhere any time soon.

In regard to Saudi Arabia, Robertson regarded the Wahabi as "vicious" who have to be dealt with "forcefully." One may wonder what that means, bomb Saudi-Arabia? To the question "How can American citizens, particularly American Christians, support Israel in this difficult time?" Robertson answered, "The best thing is to discuss the legitimacy of Israel, the legitimacy of Israel's claims to the land on a biblical basis. I think that for the American Christians and for Israel itself, the strongest claim to integrity rests strongly in the Bible. The Land was given by God." Well, it really is as simple as that: the Bible is God's inerrant word and ought to be the basis of America's foreign policy in the Middle East. The fact that Muslims will never agree to this interpretation is irrelevant as far as the good reverend is concerned. But since the land was, according to the Bible, deeded by the Lord to all of Abraham's offspring and Ishmael (purported ancestor of the Arabs) had arrived on the scene before Isaac "moral clarity" would seem to require that they have an equally good claim to at least parts of the land. Furthermore, one truly wonders about what kind of Christianity this is when one turns a blind eye to the oppression of Palestinians and concentrates exclusively on the suffering of Jews and their God given rights. For Christians, Jesus is supposed to be the final arbiter and his message does not include land grabs and expropriation of other peoples' property. The effort to remake American Christians in Pat Robertson's image can only result in further disasters. The Good Samaritan parable seems to have been bypassed by these "born again" Christians who prefer the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament.

This would not matter much if the fate of the world did not hang on these arrogant notions, proclaimed by people who are ignorant of other civilizations and their rightful aspirations to live in peace within their own culture. There is no universally agreed way on dress codes, sexual mores, what the rights and duties of males versus females are, and in certain societies even capitalism is not regarded as the highest good. When we try to impose our values on other cultures we can expect serious troubles. When our soldiers come crashing into homes in rural Afghanistan or Iraq in search of terrorists and frighten the women who don't want to be seen unveiled by strangers, humiliate the fathers by having them kneel blindfolded in front of their children, we should not be surprised when new "terrorists" spring up.

While President Reagan has been called "The Great Communicator," president Bush would surely qualify as "The Great Simplifier." By misinterpreting method for goal and labeling all insurrections against existing power structures as terrorism, he is lumping national struggles for independence with religious Mafia type criminals. This is a serious mistake for which the American people are already paying a bitter price and it is likely only to get steeper in blood and resources. It is also hardly surprising that a speech, like the one the president delivered before the UN last week did not evoke resonance from the rest of the world community. He asked for help from the UN, but on his terms. The speech was also laced with what other countries "must" do but there was no hint to what extent he is willing to share revenues if and when they were to become available from the sale of Iraq's oil and gas wealth. This approach is not likely to work and to label those who won't buy into these grandiose plans as either "evil" or enemies, will also not be helpful.

There was another interview on the Fox News channel last week which also fully fits the title of this essay. Bill O'Reilly, whose "no spin zone" has currently the biggest ratings among cable news programs, interviewed Dick Morris who was President Clinton's intimate political advisor several years ago. While Clinton could survive sexual indiscretions, Morris did not and now freelances his services, probably to the highest bidder. The remarkable aspect was that he suggested in all seriousness that if Bush wants to get re-elected next year he has to launch a war against Iran. The issue of potential nuclear proliferation will be the pretext to remove this "rogue regime" which breeds terrorists. If Bush simply sits on his haunches during the next year without any dramatic new foreign wars the unfinished business in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the potentially still sagging economy will come to haunt him and he can shelve the re-election dream. O'Reilly, who is not given to bashfulness and is a strong Bush supporter, did not want to believe this scenario but failed to contradict Morris with a more reasonable approach. Should one be surprised, therefore, that when non-Americans read or see this they come to believe that America is indeed currently the most dangerous country in the world? This perception needs to be changed but platitudes by the president about bringing freedom, democracy and peace to the rest of the world will not do. Actions speak louder than words.

Two years ago I published in these pages under the title "September 11th" an opinion as to what the various key players in the post 9/11 world really want. As far as bin-Laden is concerned he wanted to engage America into a prolonged war with Muslim countries. This would weaken America's stature in the Middle East and rally the masses to the flag of radical Islam. Bush obliged and so far Osama has gotten his wish. We are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, we may or may not bomb Iran and each passing day further antagonizes Arabs and Muslims. The fact that we seem to have again adopted a hands off policy towards Israel and vetoed a UN Security Council resolution which condemned Israel's decision to either kill or exile Arafat does not get us bonus points in Arab eyes. In addition Bush's crusade puts a terrible strain on an already weakened economy and it is doubtful that even Congress has a stomach for further military adventures unless another catastrophe occurs which can be laid at the feet of Syria or Iran. That neither of these countries has a wish to tangle with the U.S. does not matter because the mere charge of "harboring terrorists" is nowadays sufficient for a "pre-emptive strike" to bring about a regime change.

Sharon also got his wish. The West Bank is re-occupied; there are running battles in the Gaza strip, and by identifying the Palestinian struggle for statehood with America's war on terrorism he has succeeded in getting America's unqualified support. He has eliminated Iraq as a potential threat, without firing a shot, but Syria and Iran still need a little more work, and so does breaking the will of the Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation.

As far as America is concerned I was mistaken in one assumption only. I wrote that "even our leadership does not want war, but to get the economy moving and to work for global prosperity." This supposition was grounded in the basic goodness of the American people and I was not aware that war had already been decided on by September 12, 2001 as documented in Bob Woodward's book. On the other hand I was not blind to realities as the very next sentences prove,

"Nevertheless in spite of the current unity the country's opinion makers are split over how to set things right in the world. On account of the so-called Judeo-Christian tradition (a term which, by the way, is rejected by observant Jews) there are strong emotional ties to Judaism and the state of Israel. Powerful military action is urged by the majority of journalists. Currently in the minority is another group which regards war as folly but has as yet no strong support from the media. This is bound to change if and when body bags were to arrive in larger numbers.

For these reasons a major war against Islamic states is not in the best interest of the United States but serves only the purposes of Radical Muslims and proponents of a Greater Israel."

The neocons got their war and there is no end in sight. Even if Bush is voted out of office next year the legacy he leaves this country will be difficult to overcome. Democratic contenders for the presidency, who belatedly see the failures of the Bush foreign policy, are trying to define themselves. But so far none of the nine have been able to inspire a great deal of confidence in their ability to steer the country into calmer waters. We know, as yet, too little about the latest and tenth arrival on the scene, General Wesley Clark, to allow for an educated guess as to what he might really stand for and be able to do. As argued previously in these pages what is needed is a paradigm shift; away from ignorant arrogance and towards a policy which is grounded in a thorough understanding of history, which in turn leads to a genuine respect for other people's rightful aspirations and traditions. General Clark may possess these qualities but whether or not he can clearly formulate not only his aspirations, but also the ways to achieve them remains to be seen in the coming months. Right now it is too early to tell because all we have so far is rhetoric.

Finally we must face the real problem of our society. Ignorant arrogance is not limited in our country to politicians; it is wide-spread among the people. Most, if not all of us, fall prey to it intermittently. It is a cardinal sin which needs to be guarded against. "We are the biggest and the best," is a pervasive attitude. Yes, we have the biggest economy and great technology which allows us to reduce any country to rubble. But as the past two years have proven although we can destroy in a flash, winning hearts and minds cannot be done by bombs. This simple truth must first sink into the minds of the people in our media and then the general public. Only a truly educated public can generate an educated leadership which it can follow in good conscience. All politicians on the local, state, and national level, as well as all candidates for public office stress their devotion to education but hardly any one asks them what they mean by that word. When asked the answer is, as for everything else, we need more money for a variety of worthwhile projects. But the problem of ignorance cannot be solved by money. Educational reform, to be meaningful, would have to realize that what is being taught in our schools, from elementary through college, is more important than how it is taught. This is the real problem which ought to be faced and publicly acknowledged.
 
 
 
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!