Musings
|
Iran, Pakistan and the Politics of Trust (11/17/06)
As the British Mandate in the Middle East dissolved during the post-WWII era, the Eisenhower administration crafted a durable and successful diplomatic alliance with the pro-Western, oil-rich and despotic Shah of Iran. This alliance made great sense for the United States: northern Iran bordered the southernmost Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan, and thus a friendly Iran meant an unfriendly border for the Soviets. Additionally, Iran was poised by the 1950s to become a top oil-producing state in a region that was quickly becoming a critical blip on the American policymaking radar screen. Unfortunately, due to a series of actions perceived by the Iranian people as hostile to Islam, the Shah grew increasingly unpopular in the decades that followed. By the late 1970s the Shah and his government were unable to stem the tide of Khomeini’s blossoming Islamic revolution.
In response to “losing” Iran in the struggle against Soviet Imperialism, and in the wake of a Soviet invasion of neighboring Afghanistan during the same year, the United States government chose a new policy direction: court the favor of the leadership in Islamabad (thus drawing the line against Soviet expansionism on the Afghan-Pakistani border). In fact, President Ronald Reagan’s eight years in office were characterized by a strong diplomatic partnership between the United States and Pakistan. When, however, our Cold War doctrine of containment evaporated in the wake of Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika, so too did the United States’ apparent need for Pakistan’s friendship. In the early 1990s President George Bush reversed the Reagan-era policies of cooperation that had existed between Pakistan and the United States when he and Congress levied sanctions against the governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto for their pursuit of nuclear weapons technology.
Jump to the present, a decade in which our current President has fashioned a new love affair with Pakistan and its leader Pervez Musharraf…in an effort to isolate our former ally and friends in Iran and in order to pursue our wars in Iraq…a former ally in its war with Iran… and Afghanistan…whose ousted leaders, the Taliban, were our former freedom-fighting allies in our Cold War with the Soviet Union. Yipes. Also worthy of note is that the U.S. Congress is moving toward passage of legislation that essentially gives Pakistan…and India: let’s not forget about India…the green light with regard to the manufacture of fissile material for the production of nuclear weapons…in direct counter-distinction to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties to which we are holding Iran and North Korea accountable. And the people in the Middle East don’t trust us? How can that be? We simply want them to be free and happy.
It never ceases to amaze me just how obtuse are the American public. George W. Bush stomps his feet and pounds his fist and tells us we need to keep nuclear technology from proliferating in Iran, and the American people stomp their feet and pound their fists and say “right!” Meanwhile, Pakistan---arguably the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East in light of the overwhelming poverty, religious extremism and anti-Americanism that dominates the Pakistani social landscape---is given the nod to develop a substantial nuclear arsenal…because we need them right now in the so-dubbed “war-on-terror”. All of this, of course, in direct conflict with the policies of George Bush-The-Greater who, only fifteen years earlier, had moved to isolate Pakistan from the international community for their pursuit of nuclear technologies…which was fifteen years after 1979, a year in which Ronald Reagan had implored the American people to support the Mujihideen “freedom fighters” in their war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan…to which the American people had also said yes. Wow. We have no shame. And there’s the problem: We, as a nation, lack humility. We are shameless in our pursuit of policy objectives and, as such, we have reaped what we have sown: a world that justifiably does not trust us...and who will use us for our wealth and resources, but who will turn on us when the moment is right…just as we have turned on them.
So what now? How do we save the world?
Let’s face facts: Iran is going to develop nuclear technology. (So are The Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Bangladesh, etc.) The technology exists, the knowledge exists, and the desire exists. Instead of fashioning short-term and shortsighted policies that further alienate us from the people of Iran, I say we should support the development of nuclear technologies in Iran and help the Iranians build a strong and viable economic base. Then, and only then, will the people (and government) of Iran---in trusting union with their true friend, the United States of America--- team with us in our effort to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists.
And as for Pakistan: we have a lot of work to do in order to try and repair what we have destroyed. Helping Iran---and Lebanon, and Syria, and Indonesia---join the nuclear fraternity will engender in the people of Pakistan---and the world--- a sense that the United States does, in fact, care about them. The rants of the bin Ladens of the world will increasingly fall upon uninterested ears. The terrorists will finally be surrounded by a world that sees them as a threat to the growing wealth and security of all. It may seem paradoxical, but only through helping other nations become our equals can we save ourselves from destruction. The days of preemption and unilateralism are over. Our hypocrisy has been exposed. It’s time for the United States to apologize for our decades of deceit and duplicity and to lovingly and in earnest make good on old promises…and new.
Preserve, Protect, Defend (11/14/06)
I wonder….
How are they going to do it? How are the Neo-cons going to march inexorably forward in pursuing their agenda of preemption, their “war on terror”, their denuclearization of the developing world? We have to assume that they have a plan, right? There’s no way in Hades that Bush and his modern day crusaders are going to let a bunch of spineless liberals get into office and open the United States to destruction at the hands of the barbarians. No way. So, the question remains: how are they going to do it?
Hardcore conspiracy theorists believe that the Neo-cons will manufacture a “terrorist” attack on U.S. soil and then use the newly passed Military Construction Act of 2007 to declare Martial Law (H. R. 5122 –“The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States as a result of a…terrorist attack or incident…or…suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.) This seems a bit over the top to me.
Still others believe that massive voter fraud will, regardless of the will of the people, seal victory for a Bush crony in 2008. Plausible, I’ll admit: But ongoing efforts to monitor elections as well as to keep tabs upon the Diebolds of the world make fraud of such an enormous scale pretty tough to pull off.
I happen to think that neither of the aforementioned is necessary. The Neo-cons needn’t sneak in the back door in order to remain in power beyond 2008. The route to victory for the Bushies in 2008 (and beyond) runs through the front door: directly through the Constitution of the United States.
Time and again we hear George Bush defend the legality of his actions: wire-tapping, harsh interrogation tactics, suspension of Habeas Corpus: all legal, claims Bush. Take for example Bush’s redefinition of the scope of executive authority vis-à-vis the Presidential Signing Statement:
No back door for these guys. No sir. The Bush team will use the Constitution to legitimize their hold on power beyond 2008. Here are but a few of the myriad of possibilities open to the new neo cons: the neo-Constitutionalists:
2008 may be the year of the “Faithless Elector”: the year in which electors sent to the college to cast votes for President on behalf of their states’ citizens break their oaths of faith and cast electoral votes for the Republican candidate. State laws stipulate that Electors cannot do this. However, these laws also stipulate that a violation of the voters’ trust can only be prosecuted after the fact.
Did you know that the Vice-President, in his role as President of the Senate, counts the electoral votes for President in front of members of the Congress?
Repeal of the 22nd Amendment seems unlikely. Did you know, however, that efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment’s restriction on term limits comes under scrutiny every year in Congress?
Section III, clause 2 of the Constitution allows the President the authority to adjourn Congress should members not agree satisfactorily on such a date. Should the President convene an emergency joint session of Congress, any dissent with regard to the end of such a session could lead to Presidential declaration of indefinite adjournment for the 110th Congress
Largely undefined is the scope of Executive Privilege, particularly during a time of war or crisis. Presidents have asserted rights under this concept that could be construed as unconstitutional.
Read your Constitution carefully. The unitary executive is the epitome of the loose constructionist. He will interpret the document in a manner consistent with his goal of saving the world from the terrorists. This is how they’re going to do it. Like an immune system run amuck, George Bush and his fellow crusaders are going to use the very document that is supposed to check their power as they seek to push ever forward with their war to save humanity.
Hard to Get a Handle (11/13/06)
Is George Bush still a freakishly conservative, war-mongering, delusional ideologue, or, like Indiana Jones in the second installment of the great trilogy, has he been rudely awakened from his evil, zombie-like, somnambulant haze? More pointedly is George Bush becoming Dave Kovic, or will he remain Bill Mitchell? This is a tad confusing for me. I’m feeling better after the election. My feeling better makes me uneasy. Keeping with the DAVE analogy, I’m becoming more concerned about Dick Cheney: a.k.a. Bob Alexander. If in fact “W” is emerging from his crusading fascist coma, will Dick Cheney find some way to grab the White House as he pushes forward his Napoleonic agenda? I guess we’ll see. In the mean time, I’ll continue to look for cute condos in Montreal.
The Most Dangerous Election in our Nation’s History (11/08/06)
As the Democrats declared victory in their reclamation of the House majority, I took little notice. I feigned a smile when my wife jumped for joy at the news of Nancy Pelosi’s ascendance to the Speaker’s role. I, for one, will not let myself celebrate this moment in time. I fear for our country: not, as Republicans might argue, because a democratic Congress is going to somehow weaken our resolve in the “war on terror”. No, my fear is that the American people are living in a dream world: A dream world in which the Bush era erodes and eventually dissolves into a bright coral-blue sea of liberal, anti-war, multilateral legislation. Contrary to this dream, I think that the reality speaks for itself:
To begin with, George Bush believes that the current “War on Terror” is the ultimate battle for civilization. He has said so time and time and time again:
"The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror…we rededicate ourselves to this cause. Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies. We will protect our people. And we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty….history teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, an exiled lawyer in Europe published a pamphlet called ‘What Is To Be Done?’ -- in which he laid out his plan to launch a communist revolution in Russia. The world did not heed Lenin's words, and paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war. In the 1920s, a failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words, and paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives. Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed.”
In a multitude of speeches such as this, George Bush makes perfectly clear that nothing will deter him in his quest to win this “war-of-the-millennium”.
Secondly, George Bush has advanced the unchecked power of the Presidency through his adherence to the theory of the unitary executive. He has, to date, issued over 750 signing statements that nullify the authority of the legislature. Examples of his assertion of executive authority include the following:
RE: Agriculture Appropriations Bill of 2001: “A number of provisions contained in the bill purport to restrict executive branch execution of programs that are funded in the bill. Where such provisions contradict the Supreme Court ruling in INS v. Chadha, their intent will be interpreted as advisory only.”
RE: Commerce Bill of 2001: “Several provisions of the bill unconstitutionally constrain my authority regarding the conduct of diplomacy and my authority as Commander-in-Chief. I will apply these provisions consistent with my constitutional responsibilities.”
RE: HR 1268: “The Executive Branch shall construe subsection 1025(d) of the Act as advisory, as any other construction would conflict with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief.”
RE: Dept. of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006: “Under the heading ‘Customs and Border Protection,’ the Act purports to require the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to relocate its tactical checkpoints in the Tucson, Arizona, sector at least once every 7 days. Decisions on deployment and redeployment of law enforcement officers in the execution of the laws are a part of the executive power vested in the President by Article II of the Constitution. Accordingly, the executive branch shall construe the relocation provision as advisory rather than mandatory. Additionally, Section 516 of the Act purports to direct the conduct of security and suitability investigations. To the extent that section 516 relates to access to classified national security information, the executive branch shall construe this provision in a manner consistent with the President's exclusive constitutional authority, as head of the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief, to classify and control access to national security information and to determine whether an individual is suitable to occupy a position in the executive branch with access to such information.”
RE: National Defense Authorization Act of 2007: A number of provisions of the Act, including sections 905, 932, 1004, 1212, 1224, 1227, and 1304, call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress on various subjects. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.
RE: McCain anti-torture Amendment to Defense Appropriations Act of 2006: “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
RE: Maritime Transportation Act of 2006: “The executive branch shall construe section 408(c) of the Act, which purports to make consultation with a legislative agent a precondition to execution of the law, to call for but not mandate such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.”
RE: Defense Appropriation act of 2007: “Sections 8007, 8084, and 9005 of the Act prohibit the use of funds to initiate a special access program or a new start program, unless the congressional defense committees receive advance notice. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that the President's authority to classify and control access to information bearing on the national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority. Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8084, and 9005 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.”
RE: Department of Homelands Security Appropriations Act of 2007: “The executive branch shall construe as calling solely for notification the provisions of the Act that purport to require congressional committee approval for the execution of a law.”
RE: Port Security Act of 2006: “The executive branch shall construe as advisory provisions of the Act that purport to direct or burden the conduct of negotiations by the executive branch with foreign governments, international organizations, or other entities abroad, that purport to direct executive branch officials to negotiate with foreign governments or in international organizations to achieve specified foreign policy objectives, or that purport to require the executive branch to disclose deliberations between the United States and foreign countries. Such provisions include subsections 205(d) and (i) and 803(b) of the Act; subsection 431(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by section 301 of the Act; and subsection 629(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 404 of the Act. Such provisions, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, would impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs, participate in international negotiations, and supervise the unitary executive branch.”
RE: H. R. 5122 Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 Sec. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES: (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to (A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that (i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and (ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or (B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. Signing Statement: “The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.”
The reality seems abundantly clear. The dream is just that. The Bush mission of saving America from the evils of Islamo-Fascism will not be derailed by Democracy. George Bush has embarked upon an ambitious program of nullifying the authority of our federal legislature in his race to save humanity. Yesterday’s apparent election victory for democracy is but a specter, a ghost. Our present reality will not change because the laws that are passed by the next Congress will not, in fact, exist. I fear that what follows for our nation is an authoritarian nightmare from which we may never awaken.
ADDENDUM, 1:20PM, 11/8/06
Dems take House. Dems about to take Senate. Rumsfeld resigns. Maybe I’m wrong.
ADDENDUM #2, 1:25PM, 11/8/06
Bush nominates Gates: I was right.
MISSING THE BOAT (11/6/06)
Gore Vidal proclaims tomorrow’s election as the most important in his lifetime. http://www.TruthDig.com Other prominent liberals agree. They believe that return to a Democrat-controlled Congress is key toward moving us away from the disastrous policies promulgated by the George W. Bush Administration. I think they’re all missing the boat.
Tomorrow the Democrats will make substantial gains. The House will fall slightly toward the Left; the Senate, in all likelihood, split 50/50 for the first time in a long while. Americans will heave a collective sigh of relief: “It’s the beginning of the end of the Bush reign”, they will muse. “And, best of all, the voting machines worked!” Of course they worked. They worked because Bush let them work, You see, truth is, a victory for the Democrats tomorrow fits perfectly into Bush’s plan.
A victory for the Democrats allays the fears of millions vis-à-vis election fraud. In 2008, when the Bush Junta carries out the most far-reaching election fraud in the history of our nation---and then lots of people will point to 2006 and say that the Republicans in 2008 won fair and square.
Have you heard of something called Presidential Signing Statements? Do you know that George Bush has, to a significant extent, nullified the power of our federal legislature by issuing statements regarding his ability, as the unitary executive, to view laws as “advisory” only in nature? Particularly during this time of war, George Bush views the power of the President as absolute. A left-leaning Congress only means that Bush will get writers cramp: it means nothing with regard to abandonment of the Bush Doctrine. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020930-8.html
Tomorrow’s election is only important in that the Left must not see short-term gains as proof-positive of change. Change is not in the wind! George Bush will not allow democracy to get in the way of his prosecution of the war for the survival of civilization.
Vidal is wrong.
The Power of the Precedent, See? (11/06/06)
George W. Bush refuses to sign onto The Kyoto Accords, scoffs at The Geneva Conventions, acts unilaterally in pursuing and prosecuting the “War on Terror”, and generally ignores the will of the world. Truth is, George Bush must act with such contempt: to not do so would mean recognizing the authority of international law. Were George Bush to accede, even once, to the will of international law, precedent would be on the side of the world.
A Letter to America 11/3/06
My Fellow Americans:
Let me be so very clear. George Bush is not going to let anything, or anyone, get in the way of his winning the “war on terror”. He earnestly believes that the very survival of our nation is at stake. He also believes that successful prosecution of the war on terror trumps---at least in the short-term---the maintenance of our democratic institutions. Here are just a few examples:
RE: Civil Unrest---H. R. 5122 Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 Sec. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES: (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to (A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that (i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and (ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or (B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.
RE: Wire Tapping---President's Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005: “The executive branch shall construe section 8124, relating to integration of foreign intelligence information, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive branch.”
RE: Torture---McCain Amendment 1977 to Defense Appropriations Act of 2006: (a) No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." GEORGE BUSH SIGINING STATEMENT: “The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
RE: Habeas Corpus--- Sec. 948c. “Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.” The issue in question---if an American citizen is said to relinquish citizenship for his participation in any activity deemed by the government as aiding terrorists (anti-war protests, teach-ins against the war, etc.) In any of these types of scenarios, an American citizen can be held without charge and with no legal recourse.
I do not subscribe to the radical viewpoint that has George Bush clamoring to become the dictator of America. I actually do believe that George Bush loves the ideals of freedom and democracy. But I also believe that George Bush is willing to suspend many of our freedoms as he seeks victory in the “war on terror”. Make no mistake about it: George Bush believes---to the core of his being--- that the current conflict against “Islamo-Fascism” (and nuclear proliferation) is the struggle for our very existence---and, consistent with this belief, George Bush is systematically laying a foundation that will allow him to pursue this struggle unfettered and unconstrained.
Here are my predictions for the next two years:
In response to continued threats abroad, The U.S. undertakes bombing campaigns against Iran and Syria
Protests against the bombings and against the war in Iraq intensify throughout the United States
A major “terrorist” attack takes place in the United States
The government’s response: Imposition of a State of Emergency
The Department of Homeland Security assumes emergency authority over the power grid, airports, railways, highways, nuclear power facilities, food distribution, mobile communications infrastructure, Internet and digital infrastructure, and hospitals
Curfews enforced in most metropolitan areas
Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters temporarily incarcerated under the authority of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. (Closed military bases serve as the prisons.)
Selective Service draft reauthorized
Either:
Espionage Acts reauthorized
Colleges and Universities temporarily suspended
Sedition Acts temporarily reauthorized
Do I sound alarmist? Paranoid? I don’t think so. The big picture for our President is the long-term survival of our country. And George Bush believes that the competing harms argument---the argument that supports temporary suspension of our democracy vs. the total destruction of our way of life---not only justifies these actions: it demands these actions.
Oh my god! (11/2006)
Go here: http://www.bound4life.com/elections/
Notice the issues? Abortion & Gay Marriage: Abortion, seen by conservative Christians as the killing of an unborn child. I can understand that. I don’t agree with it, but I can see their point. And Gay marriage, seen….ummmmm….seen as….ummmmm…..Gay marriage. Hmmmm. I’m confused. What does Gay marriage have to do with abortion? Why is Gay marriage opposed so deeply by the Christian Right? Is it because God says that being Gay is bad? I suspect not. Actually, the real issue here---of course: I’m just being silly---is the justification, rationalization of bigotry and hate. It’s quite simple: People who hate Gays like to hang out with other people who hate Gays, and it just so happens that Baptist churches are great places to find common ground in hating Gays. “But we don’t hate them: we love them. We just know that they’re sinning and we want them to be saved.” Don’t, please don’t. Don’t patronize us. You hate Gays. You hate Gays as much as you hate murder (abortion, remember?). Y’know folks, hating Gays ain’t gonna get you into heaven: I’ve heard through the grapevine that God is a real Queen.
Speak Uneasy (11/2006)
How many times over the past 6 years have I had to listen to people refer to George Bush as being morally bankrupt? Hundreds? Thousands? Liberals seem to love this term: It sounds so definitive. “The man is morally bankrupt!” Well, I think it’s wrong. If someone is morally bankrupt, isn’t the implication that the law protects him from having to repay his debts to society? There are no more debtor’s prisons, per se: bankruptcy is protected by law. The law should NOT protect George Bush. Let’s stop using that silly expression. George Bush isn’t morally bankrupt: he’s morally toxic.
So Very Over (11/2006)
Yesterday, George Bush said the following: "I don't believe it's (the election) over until everybody votes." Oh, it’s over alright. The fix is in. Surreal as it may seem, the United States has, in 6 painful years, gained the dubious distinction as the world’s foremost authority on sophisticated and well-laundered election fraud. The Bush mission of saving America from the evils of Islamo-Fascism will not be derailed by the democratic process. George Bush has essentially admitted as much. With his revolutionary view of the absolute authority of the unitary executive and his liberal use of presidential signing statements*, George Bush has clearly demonstrated his intention: to proceed with his agenda of war abroad regardless of the will of the people. It is definitely, positively, and most assuredly, over. *example: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020930-8.html
A Good Bet (11/2006)
“Hello, Dennis? Hey, how goes it? How’s the wife? Great to hear. Hey listen, I have a few bets I wanna place this week. Ready? OK…Give me Boston College with the points over Miami. Ya, let’s say $1000. Also, I’m gonna put $1000 on Green Bay. Ya, ya, I know. And…ummm…let’s do $1000 on the over for the Patriots and the Colts. Yup, I know. But Peyton’s due for a huge game. Hold on a second. I’m not done yet. Let’s see here…Put $1000 on the Republicans retaining the majority in the House. I have some insider info on this one. Ya (laughing). Also, I hear you’re giving 3:1 in favor of a civilian draft for war with Iran. I’m gonna put $1000 against the draft, but I do want heavy action on the coming carpet bombing campaign. Even odds? That’s fine. I’ll put $2500 on that one. Ok. Let’s see, how about one long shot just for grins. What are you giving on Bush’s suspension of the Twenty Second Amendment and declaration of a national State of Emergency? Really, 9:1? I’ll take the odds. $500. Hey, good talking to you old friend. Have a good one. Bye now”
Back to Gandhi (11/2006)
Remember when Gandhi---Ben Kingsley---speaks at the Indian Congress meeting for the 1st time? All of the Congress party members make exciting, provocative speeches. Everyone cheers. Then Gandhi gets up and essentially tells the audience that their words mean nothing. “I know that what we say here means nothing to the masses of our country. Here, we make speeches for each other, and those English liberal magazines that may grant us a few lines. But the people (of India) are untouched. Illiterate they may be, but they're not blind. They see no reason to give their loyalty to rich and powerful men who simply want to take over the role of the British in the name of freedom. This Congress tells the world it represents India. My brothers, India is 700,000 villages, not a few hundred lawyers in Delhi and Bombay. Until we stand in the fields with the millions that toil each day under the hot sun, we will not represent India -- nor will we ever be able to challenge the British as one nation.”
That’s exactly how I feel about the current liberal diatribe: All of the great liberals---Kennedy, Dean, Kerry---writing and speaking for and to each other. I mean, c’mon! Do you think that the ordinary person---the rancher or farmer or taxi driver or teacher simply looking to put food on the table for the family---trusts these liberal aristocrats? Gandhi was right. They’re a bunch of snotty intellectuals who like to pat each other on the back for their great insights, their commitment to “the struggle” (Puleeeaasssse!). The only way we’re going to rescue this nation from the grips of the Bush Tyranny is when all of us commit to making real sacrifices---sacrifices of our time, our wealth, our egos. In the meantime the wealthy liberal will continue, as Gandhi said, to represent nothing more to most of us than the flip side of a two-headed coin.
(Addendum: I’d also suggest that all of the liberal pundits in this country---you know who you are: the ones who write for: http://www.Slate.com , http://www.CommonDreams.org http://www.TruthDig.com, etc.---that all of you take a moment to realize that you’re preaching to the choir. How are you going to affect real change? You wanna save the country? Get out from behind your laptop and do something real.)
IT’S THE GREAT PUMPKIN, AMERICA (2006)
Remember Linus, sitting out in the pumpkin patch on Halloween night, waiting for the arrival of the Great Pumpkin? Poor, trusting, innocent Linus: stays up all night, misses Halloween, gets lambasted by Sally, and yet still refuses to accept reality. He really blew it. Well Halloween 2006 has arrived, and I for one refuse to wait for the Great Pumpkin ever again. I know that the Great Pumpkin is a ruse, a falsehood, a specter. I don’t trust those who continue to tell me to be patient: that waiting for the Great Pumpkin is worth it, that I must stay the course. (I sure hope that Linus wakes up before it’s too late.)
DETER THIS (2006)
George Bush is trying to convince us that we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. Why? I thought Republicans believed that having a nuclear arsenal actually was a great deterrent to war? Don’t you remember Ronald Reagan’s claims about “Peace Keeper” missiles and the like? Oh, now I get it. George Bush and his cronies don’t want Iran to have nukes because they don’t want Iran to possess a deterrent to war. Of course, that’s it. How can we wage war on Iran if they possess their own Peace Keepers? (Silly me for not having figured that one out sooner.)
WAITING FOR ARMAGEDDON? (2006)
From Waiting for Godot: by Samuel Becket
ESTRAGON Well, shall we go? VLADIMIR: Yes, let's go.
They do not move.
Our Republican Administration and Congress are destroying our country. Corruption, bribery, graft; A President and staff who lie without conscience; “I don’t recall that meeting”. Secret prisons, suspension of Constitutional rights; Attacks on sovereign states, and threats of more attacks.
We all know about it. It’s in the news every day. And yet for some reason we do not move. Our President threatens to launch “preemptive strikes” against Iran and North Korea, and we do not move. Our Attorney General listens to our private telephone conversations, and we do not move. Our Vice-President creates a network of secret prisons overseas, and we do not move.
I, for one, am done not moving. Every time I catch myself whining about the current administration, I am going to donate one hour of volunteer time to help a liberal political candidate get elected. Each time I call Condy Rice a liar, I’m going to work to get Bernie elected to the U.S. Senate. Each time I accuse Dick Cheney of being a corporate stooge, I am going to stuff envelopes at Scudder Parker’s headquarters. It’s enough with the whining. Whining will not save us from ourselves. I am going to move. I hope that you will too.
BUSH SPEAKS TO THE NATION
My Fellow Americans:
I know that some of you don’t like me, but your children and grandchildren will thank me for my foresight and courage. I am saving us all from destruction. So, for the sake of your kids, try not to see it as voter fraud. See it more as reshaping election results for the sake of our nation’s survival. Try not to see it as squashing dissent. See it more as keeping us all on board in our war against Islamo-Fascism. Try not to see it as the end of our Democratic Republic. See it more as necessary short-term adjustments to our great political system as we seek to defeat the enemies of freedom. I love you all. May God Bless.
George W. Bush
Global Warning
To The Editor:
Your recent article about Global Warming was an eye-opener. (Close-Up, 4/3/06) Certainly such evidence of climate change should compel our political leaders to act quickly in an attempt to stem such change. It won’t.
The Fundamentalist Christians who lead our country do not need to listen to the scientists. George Bush and his Creationist brethren ignore evidence of global warming----provided by literally millions of hours of rigorous scientific research----and instead claim that such evidence does not prove anything. “These are theories”, they purport, “and theories are not fact.” Sound familiar? The same obtuse arguments are used to counter evidence of the evolutionary processes that were initially described by scientist Charles Darwin (in an effort by the fundamentalists to bring god into the classroom).
I fear these Creationists who lead our country. When government officials ignore scientific evidence---or for that matter public opinion, moral imperatives, etc.---as they defend their immoral actions and inactions, we, the sovereign public of the nation, have no way to affect policy change. Have you ever tried to engage a religious zealot in a rational debate? Each and every salient point that you may make is countered by the vapid claim that, while your arguments may seem reasonable and logical, logic and reason are illusory: the only truth lies in the word of god.
George Bush is a religious zealot. He is able to brush aside the most lucid scienitifc analyses vis-a-vis global climate change because he thinks that god, not human action, controls the environment: and god would never let us down.
George Bush was an Honor Student at Jesus Camp
The Iraqization of Vietnam (2006)
Virtually every historian would agree that our Vietnam policies during the post-WWII era were a failure. We supported the French for eight years as they sought to reclaim a lost colony, and they in turn lost the country. We attempted to construct a non-Communist South Vietnam by "installing" and backing a series of puppet regimes. This didn't work. We created an international incident out of the Tonkin Gulf attacks and used them to justify a massive bombing campaign against the Communist regime in Hanoi. Another failure. In 1967 William Westmoreland told us that we were winning the war when we were not. In 1968 Lyndon Johnson promised victory when all evidence pointed to the contrary. We used defoliants on the jungles and napalm on the enemy soldiers, and in 1975 we fled Vietnam in defeat. And so it seems quite reasonable that historians would deem our Vietnam policies a failure.
It is time that we reassess these so-called failures.
Our Vietnam policy was built upon a strategy of containment. Our goal in Vietnam after 1946 was clear: isolate Ho Chi Minh's Marxist regime. Do not allow the Viet Minh's brand of Communism to overrun Southeast Asia. In order to see this goal realized, a number of strategies were fashioned by policymakers in Washington D.C. Each of these policies was unique to its time: support for the French during the first Indochina War; nation-building after the 1954-Geneva partition of Vietnam; and eventually, an American war against the Communist regime in the North.
The truth is that these policies did in fact succeed. Let us not forget that the doctrine guiding our twenty-nine years of involvement in Vietnam was based upon the principle of containment: do not allow the Communists the opportunity to annex any more territory in Southeast Asia than they already have. And while the Vietnamese were "busy" fighting wars with France and with the United States, Communism was in fact contained. Our goal of containment had been realized.
Historians will point out that the Vietnamese were engaged in a national struggle for independence; that had we left them alone, the Vietnamese would have "liberated" the South, proclaimed national reunification and independence, and not, as the domino-theorists had preached, attempted to spread Marxist doctrine throughout Southeast Asia. The reality remains---regardless of Vietnamese aspirations for simple autonomy or whether instead they dreamed of a global Maoist revolution--- that while Vietnam fought a war with the United States, Communism did not overrun the countries of the Malay Peninsula.
It is true that we did not win the war. It is also true that over 58,000 American personnel and an estimated 2 million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians died during the conflict. What cannot be denied, however, is that these policies had succeeded in containing Communism.
By the time the war had ended and the U.S. had left Vietnam, our doctrine of containment would face challenges in other parts of the world: growing Marxist movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador demanded our immediate attention; a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 called for a new policy in Central Asia (and support for Bin Laden's Mujihideen "freedom fighters" was just such a policy).
The American people should recognize that our public officials must ultimately gauge the success of individual policies vis-a-vis the doctrine upon which the policies are constructed. The questions that our elected officials must ask as they examine individual policy decisions include the following: Was the policy successful: were the ends achieved? Were the actions in support of these policies legal and defensible? (Citizens, on the other hand, tend to gauge a policy's success in more basic terms: Was it necessary? Was it ethical? Was it moral?)
As we enter the new millennium-- an era with a new doctrine: one of pre-emption rather than containment-- the American people must become willing to acknowledge that policies such as those being debated on Iraq and North Korea may not appear necessary, nor might the actions in support of these policies seem ethical or moral. But clearly these policies are consistent with the emerging Bush doctrine, and members of the Bush team will calculate the success and failure of these policies NOT on moral grounds, but instead they will measure the success of their actions by employing one simple equation: did these policies deter an attack on the United States.
George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and the rest believe that victory over the Islamo-Fascists is THE ONLY OPTION. They also believe---as Richard Nixon did before them---that all actions taken by the President during a time of war are by definition legal.
By the time THIS war is over, the 58,000 American and 2 million Vietnamese deaths from the Vietnam War are going to seem like the good old days.
Fascinating (2006)
There is a great Star Trek episode from the late 1960s entitled “Specter of the Gun”. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty and Chekhov are compelled to fight Wyatt Earp and his gang in a showdown at the O.K. Corral. Curious aliens have, of course, orchestrated the battle: some kind of a moral psychodrama. Anyway, in this episode Mr. Spock develops a “knock-out” gas from ingredients found in Doc Holiday’s office. The protagonists logically figure that if they can render the Earp Gang unconscious, then they won’t have to fight them at the O.K. Corral. (And as we know, the Earp’s defeat the Clanton’s at the gunfight at the O.K. Corral. And as Mr. Spock so aptly points out, “history cannot be changed.”)
All are certain that the gas will work; but just to be sure, Scotty volunteers to be the test subject for the agent. Spock, for one, is spellbound, when the potion fails to work. “Fascinating” he quips. Spock goes on to explain the enormity of this paradox. “The potion” he explains, “must work. By all laws we know, it simply cannot fail. And yet it has failed”. Spock goes on to theorize that a massive manipulation of the crew’s brain patterns must be occurring. He also explains that this knowledge, if used correctly, can save the crew from certain demise at the O.K Corral.
I am reminded of this episode every time I ponder our current political situation. I find the paradox of the American people and our relationship to the Bush Presidency utterly astounding.
We accept as real that the people of the United States elect the President and the members of Congress, and yet volumes of credible evidence clearly points to the contrary: Election fraud---including vote tampering, electronic machine software hacking, voter intimidation, voter disenfranchisement---exists on a massive scale. And yet, even with these stark realities staring us in the eyes, we continue to blither on about the importance of the upcoming midterm elections and the different close Congressional races as if we, the people, are actually electing these officials. But we are not electing these officials. The fix is in. Our supposed democratic elections are an illusion, a specter. The elections are unreal, because the votes we cast do not, in fact, exist.
We accept as real our President’s stated belief in the sanctity of democracy and freedom. And yet somehow we ignore the reality of his actions: elimination of Habeas Corpus rights through his signing into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006; NSA wire-tapping programs and use by the military of illegally-obtained information on American citizens; sealing from public scrutiny presidential files---such as those of Ronald Reagan detailing his plans for Martial Law through Rex 84 and like covert operations; belief in the absolute legality of ALL Presidential acts during times of war---including the issuance of 750 presidential signing statements describing how he, the President, is not bound by the Constitution or by Congressional action; over-stepping the bounds of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 so that the U.S. military can legally enforce military rule during a declared State of Emergency. We go about our daily business as if we live in a free society, and yet in reality we do not. In reality the Bush Administration has systematically created a chief executive whose authority is not checked.
Like Mr. Spock, I am fascinated by the vastness of the paradox at hand. The illusion is that we live in The USA, that bastion of liberty. The reality is that we live in the USA, a country whose leaders act with the same contempt for their population’s sovereignty as do Russia’s and China’s.
I forgot to tell you that Mr. Chekhov dies about half way through the episode: Morgan Earp shoots him through the heart. Of course, we know now that the bullets were not real. But because Chekhov believed that the bullets were real, he died. In preparing the crew for the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, Mr. Spock informs his comrades that the only way to survive is to have no doubt in the falsity of the illusion. To have even a modicum of belief that the bullets from Wyatt Earp’s revolvers are real would mean certain death.
I submit that we Americans must proceed with the same clarity. To have any doubt in the falseness of the Bush reality means the certain death of any hope for a free future.
Military Submission Act of 2006
Oh boo hoo, ACLU. Sob, sob, Russ Feingold. Everyone’s so sad: “Our civil liberties are going bye bye”, they cry. The just-signed-into-law Military Commissions Act of 2006---which eliminates Habeas Corpus rights for accused terrorists, permits warrantless arrest and detention of American citizens, and legalizes the harshest forms of interrogation for incarcerated individuals---is making all of the Democrats and all of the Liberals so sad. Sniffle, sniffle, whine, whine.
Truth be told, the new law means absolutely nothing. Nada. Don’t you listen to your President? "Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated, and the questions raised can seem complex. Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few: Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?" The President and his circle in Washington see the world, and their destiny to save it, very clearly. First and foremost they all agree that winning the war on terror---which includes making sure that no rogue nations join the nuclear fraternity---is the only option. There is, simply put, nothing more important that this. Secondly they believe---as Richard Nixon did before them---that all actions taken by the President in defense of the nation are legal.
Sure, George Bush will lean on the Military Commissions Act as he defends his future actions---arrest and detention of American activists, suspension of the 22nd Amendment, implementation of Martial Law---but the truth is that George Bush and his guys would carry out these actions regardless of Congresses’ rubber stamp of approval. (In case you haven’t been paying attention: they already have.)
We are so fantastically stupid. We get all huffy and puffy and hot under the collar about minutia like the Military Commissions Act and, in the process, we totally miss the big picture. George Bush and his Washington junta must laugh themselves to sleep every night as they watch as have a collective temper tantrum about any number of Red Herrings---while quietly, and with a self-assured sense of their own righteousness and moral duty to the nation, they plan the systematic deconstruction of our American Republic.
I happen to think that it’s too late to change this course. We’ve waited too long. We’ve given our President 6 years to become completely entrenched in his delusional sense of moral destiny. He is longgone. Crying about a silly little law only presents him with more children to pat on the head and to tell that he knows their upset, but he’s the dad and he knows what’s best.
Axioms (2006)
Our President believes that the current "battle for civilization" is the most critical moment in our young nation’s history. Our very survival is on the line. And frankly, I am willing to admit that he may be right. But let’s be perfectly clear: our nation is changing.
George Bush and his people believe the following:
They believe that victory in the “war on terror” (and the war to keep WMD out of the hands of rogue nations and terrorist groups) is not an option. This war must be won, and at any and all costs; They believe---like Richard Nixon did before them---that actions taken by the President during times of war and in defense of the nation cannot---by definition---be illegal or unconstitutional; They believe that the “Necessity Defense”---also known as the “Competing Harms Defense”--- justifies their actions. (The Necessity Defense argues that certain actions, which might be considered illegal under one circumstance, become legal under another. For example, a person who breaks into a burning house to save a child will not be charged with breaking-and-entering.)
Accordingly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the NSA wire-tapping program, and the elimination of Habeas Corpus rights for accused “enemy combatants” are all justifiable and legal actions.
With George Bush’s unwavering belief in the aforementioned, all choices are now on the table. Election tampering, emergency suspension of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, reauthorization of the Sedition Acts; all of these options and more are being discussed by the President and his advisors. And the President will not be distracted from his duty. He is absolutely certain that his actions in defense of the survival of the nation are both legal and moral.
As astonishing as it may sound, it is my firm belief that the world is currently witnessing the end of America's Republican Democracy and the birth of something new.
Mosquito Wars
September 10, 2006
I am a man at war -- and I am fighting this war with relentless determination. I’m on the offense against the mosquitoes on every battlefront -- and I’ll accept nothing less than complete victory..
History teaches that underestimating the mosquito is a terrible mistake. I had West Nile Meningitis in 2004, and I was really sick. The mosquitoes in my neighborhood have made their intentions clear. The question is: Will I listen? I have made my choice. I’m on the offensive, I will not retreat, and I will not withdraw from the fight.
I’m taking the fight to the enemy. War is hard. I know that. And while I understand that only 1 in every 10,000 mosquitoes are evil, I will probably have to kill them all in my quest to make this world safe. (You see, the truth is that I don’t really know which ones are harmless and which ones are bent upon my destruction. They all look alike to me.) If I retreat, 50 years from now my kids will look back on my time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know why I did not act. (© Dan Weintraub/Boston Globe)
Winning the War on Terror (2006)
I think I’ve figured it out. Remember when Mahatma Gandhi---or at least Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi in Richard Attenborough’s Academy Award winning film of the same name---told the Hindu fellow who had just killed a Muslim child that the only way out of hell was to find another Muslim child, an orphan, and to raise him as his own. “Only be sure that he is a Muslim, and raise him as one.” Said Gandhi/Kingsley. That’s it! It’s so simple. We in the United States---beginning with President George W. Bush, and on down to Condy Rice, all of the members of Congress, etc.---should all convert to Islam! We don’t have to convince the moderate voices of Islam to rise up and overcome the extremists. We can become the moderate voice of Islam ourselves! George Bush purports to represent the voice of moderation in today’s global maelstrom. OK George, put you’re Koran where your Bible is. Convert today, and join your moderate Muslim brothers in putting down the revolt of extremism that is destroying your people! Today at the U.N George Bush said, “My country desires peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam. This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam." Let’s take it a step further. Let’s become Islam: moderate, forward thinking, democratic progressive Islam! To convert today, simply go to: http://www.BecomeAMuslim.org.
THE EXTREMISTS AMONG US (2006)
We are at war with Extremism. Extremism is the cancer that eats away at the heart of humanity. It is easy to identify Extremists. Extremists share three important characteristics: The first is that they manipulate, tweak and otherwise ignore reality as a way to convince themselves of the holiness of their cause; The second is that they nurture in themselves a feeling of power through being certain that they are right; And the third is that, in attempting to build their ranks, they exploit the vulnerability of those who lack the power of conviction. Extremists thrive on vengeance because it is a powerful emotion: The Extremist’s life’s blood is the riot, the Holy War, the Jihad, the War on Terror. Oooops.
Iraq and Preemption Dan Weintraub 10/14/02
Our government's sale of arms to Iran in order to fund the anti-Communist war effort in Nicaragua in the mid-1980s was illegal. It violated the Congressional mandate prohibiting such action. Regardless of issues of legality, however, Colonel North's actions and the actions of his superiors were consistent with our Cold War doctrine of containment of Communism. When the Johnson Administration fashioned an act of war out of the North Vietnamese attack on the U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, and when the United States Congress overwhelmingly approved a resolution allowing President Johnson to commence retaliatory strikes against targets North of the 17th parallel, the administration had once again adhered faithfully to the doctrine of containment. I am compelled to acknowledge that, despite the failure of our Vietnam policy, our government’s actions in Vietnam were completely congruent with our global, post-war doctrine of anti-Communism.
To their credit, The Bush White House has made clear that there is an emerging post-September 11th American Doctrine: A doctrine that, in theory, will provide the foundation for all of our foreign policy decisions in the future. This doctrine describes American preemptive diplomatic and, if need be, military action against our perceived foes. The new American Doctrine articulates the need to make certain that neither rogue nor terrorist states have the ability to employ weapons of mass destruction in a conflict with the United States. Finally, the emerging American Doctrine describes a post-Soviet world order in which the United States remains the only true superpower, and in which the United States takes all necessary action to solidify its position in the 21st century as the primary world hegemon.
This new American Doctrine will certainly fail.
I am a high school history teacher. My students and I, in examining history, often uncover certain truths. One of these truths is that knowledge can never be monopolized. When the scientists of The Manhattan Project loosed atomic weapons upon the world, the knowledge, in that instant, became ubiquitous. Stopping Saddam Hussein from producing a nuclear bomb in the present does not stop hundreds of men, currently in power or yet to be born, from gaining access to this abundantly accessible technology. What do we do about Mr. Qadafi, Mr.Mugabi, Mr. Al-Bashir? What happens when Mr. Musharraf is overthrown and a far more radicalized government assumes power in a Pakistan already possessing a nuclear arsenal? And what happens when Mrs. Megawati sides with her fundamentalist Muslim constituency instead of bowing to the pressures of American diplomacy? How does this post 9/11 American Doctrine account for this newest and most treacherous Silk Road, the one paved with weapons of mass destruction? If indeed our leaders are compelled to act in accordance with this emerging doctrine, how do we address the fact that, within the next two decades, countries such as Syria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe may all possess these weapons. If we are to act in accordance with our newly articulated American Doctrine, do we today begin to fashion our plans for the eventuality of preemptive military strikes and regime changes in these lands?
Today I have no question that Colonel North, General Westmoreland, and President Johnson all acted in a manner consistent with the American anti-Communist doctrine of the Cold War era. At the time, the actions of these men were completely defensible. And at this juncture I have few qualms with the President’s actions. He and his cabinet are moving forward in accordance with their recently articulated post-September 11th doctrine. My concern surrounds the choice of our elected representatives to debate policy rather then doctrine: to discuss an invasion of Iraq rather than debate the doctrine justifying such an action. This in itself is a great victory for the Bush Administration. From this point on, any action taken by Bush team that is consistent with our new doctrine of preemption will be justifiable. Nothing scares me more.
If, Then: The Geometry of Our Iraq Policy
by Daniel Weintraub (2003)
My father tells me that dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the right decision. It ended the war in the Pacific, and saved the lives of countless American servicemen and women. If this is true, then it is justifiable for our leaders, when they deem it an absolute necessity, to use weapons of mass destruction in an effort to defeat the enemy.
In 1990 President George Bush-the-Elder engaged in a series of covert dialogues with the government of Saddam Hussein. During these frank discussions President Bush and his advisors made it clear to the Iraqi leadership that if Iraq deployed biological or chemical weapons against U.S. forces during the impending war, then the U.S. would have just cause to employ the most extreme weaponry in retaliation.
During a recent speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, President George W. Bush made it clear that if the United States and Iraq go to war, then the full force of the U.S. military would be brought to bear. Also, in a recent interview with reporter Bob Woodward, President Bush claimed that he is a man of action. If this is the case, then it seems logical to assume that a war with Iraq will be prosecuted in a most aggressive fashion.
Finally, there is no way that President Bush will allow U.S. soldiers to die on the battlefields of Iraq, poisoned by Saddam’s biological and chemical agents. If we assume, however, that Saddam Hussein, in a last gasp move of desperation, is willing to use these weapons, then our leaders are faced with a dizzying dilemma.
Does the introduction of U.S. troops lead us down the slippery slope toward a war in which weapons of mass destruction are employed by both sides?
Proofs don’t lie:
* The U.S. has demonstrated its willingness to use atomic weapons * The U.S. has, in the past, threatened Saddam Hussein with the use of nuclear weapons * President George W. Bush is a man of action * There will never be another Vietnam
I hope the American people are prepared.
VIETNAM REVISED
OP-ED by Daniel Weintraub 11/01/02
Virtually every historian would agree that our Vietnam policies during the post-WWII era were a failure. We supported the French for eight years as they sought to reclaim a lost colony, and they in turn lost the country. We attempted to construct a non-Communist South Vietnam by "installing" and backing a series of puppet regimes. This didn't work. We created an international incident out of the Tonkin Gulf attacks and used them to justify a massive bombing campaign against the Communist regime in Hanoi. Another failure. In 1967 William Westmoreland told us that we were winning the war when we were not. In 1968 Lyndon Johnson promised victory when all evidence pointed to the contrary. We used defoliants on the jungles and napalm on the enemy soldiers, and in 1975 we fled Vietnam in defeat. And so it seems quite reasonable that historians would deem our Vietnam policies a failure.
It is time that we reassess these so-called failures.
Our Vietnam policy was built upon a strategy of containment. Our goal in Vietnam after 1946 was clear: isolate Ho Chi Minh's Marxist regime. Do not allow the Viet Minh's brand of Communism to overrun Southeast Asia. In order to see this goal realized, a number of strategies were fashioned by policymakers in Washington D.C. Each of these policies was unique to its time: support for the French during the first Indochina War; nation-building after the 1954-Geneva partition of Vietnam; and eventually, an American war against the Communist regime in the North.
The truth may be that these policies did in fact succeed.
Let us not forget that the doctrine guiding our twenty-nine years of involvement in Vietnam was based upon the principle of containment: do not allow the Communists the opportunity to annex any more territory in Southeast Asia than they already have. And while the Vietnamese were "busy" fighting wars with France and with the United States, Communism was in fact contained; our goal of containment had been realized.
Historians will point out that the Vietnamese were engaged in a national struggle for independence; that had we left them alone, the Vietnamese would have "liberated" the South, proclaimed national reunification and independence, and not, as the domino-theorists had preached, attempted to spread Marxist doctrine throughout Southeast Asia. The reality remains---regardless of Vietnamese aspirations for simple autonomy or whether instead they dreamed of a global Maoist revolution--- that while Vietnam fought a war with the United States, Communism did not overrun the countries of the Malay Peninsula.
It is true that we did not win the war. It is also true that over 58,000 American personnel and an estimated million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians died during the conflict. What cannot be denied, however, is that these policies had succeeded in containing Communism.
By the time the war had ended and the U.S. had left Vietnam, our doctrine of containment would face challenges in other parts of the world: growing Marxist movements in Nicaragua and El Salvador demanded our immediate attention; a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 called for a new policy in Central Asia, and support for Bin Laden's Mujihideen "freedom fighters" was just such a policy.
It is imperative that the American people recognize that our public officials must ultimately gauge the success of individual policies vis-à-vis the doctrine upon which the policies are constructed. The questions that our elected officials must ask as they examine individual policy decisions include the following: Was the policy successful: were the ends achieved? Were the actions in support of these policies justifiable and defensible? Citizens, on the other hand, tend to gauge a policy's success in more basic terms: Was it necessary? Was it ethical? Was it moral?
As we enter the new millennium-- an era with a new doctrine; one of pre-emption rather than containment-- the American people must become willing to acknowledge that policies such as those being debated on Iraq and North Korea may not appear necessary, nor might the actions in support of these policies seem ethical or moral. But clearly these policies will be consistent with the emerging Bush doctrine, and members of the Bush team will calculate the success and failure of these policies not on moral nor on ethical grounds, but instead they will measure the success of their actions by employing one simple equation: did these policies deter an attack on the United States and its interests.
Of Pipe Bombs and Pacifiers
Op-Ed by Daniel Weintraub
When I am behaving like a child, my wife says that I am “operating in DOSÒ mode”. As a mature adult, I always strive to “operate in Windows mode”; but, like most, I have issues from my past that can send me tumbling back into DOS. All self-reflective adults know that it takes hard work to operate in Windows.
Children of course don't have DOS mode; they are DOS. They are indulgently narcissistic, desperately insecure, and hopelessly hormonal. This is quite normal. Indeed it is appropriate. Children see the world in black and white. |