Editorial Points

2007-07-31T04:00:00.001-07:00

written December 3, 2006, and transferred here

A Nuanced View of Bush and the Iraq War

As we all know, politics is very partisan. The other side are demons and our side is, mostly, angels. It would bring a note of rare elevation to look at it all more dispassionately, and recognize the paradoxes in our present state of affairs. It might even be useful! This is an attempt at doing that.

George W. Bush has been President for almost six years. What is he like really? During his campaign he said that the US should be “humble.” A worthy belief, although the US has been quite the opposite during his term. Does anybody remember his inaugural address? It was quite compassionate and gentle. He has made remarkable moves in appointing the first two black Secretaries of State – in a row –, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, both of them quiet rather than blustery. His wife Laura is a quiet former librarian. (But he gets few compliments for all this.) And he seems quite confident, claiming he has made few mistakes despite a war that is crashing down around his ears. What does it all mean?

George W. seemed to show no interest in world politics until he decided to run for President. He preferred drinking, drugging, partying, and sports events. Nothing was serious, and this has carried over into his new job. To many he seems remarkably stupid, but this probably is really mostly a lack of real interest. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. So why did he run for President? The main reason was to beat his kid brother Jeb to it. In that he was completely successful: his first goal as President was achieved the day he took office. So what was he to do next? He was told by his backers, just do what we say, be a President and preside. And that is what he has done. He knows his family has always served the interests of the core group who run the world, so there is no point in arguing with them even if he did know better, which he doubts. Bush surely knew that Al Gore tried hard to push President Clinton into a ground war in Iraq to no avail, so the Iraq war would have happened if he had been elected. That must ease his conscience.

Has he been a total puppet then? Maybe not. The drive for war, publicly led by Cheney, began as soon as Bush took office, but didn’t take place until over two years later. Maybe Bush resisted. The phony 9/11 “attack” may have been necessary to make Bush do it, and yet it still took a long time. At last Bush and Rumsfeld went along with their bosses’ little game. It is no wonder that Rumsfeld often had a suppressed chortle and Bush a smirk when they discussed the necessity for the war – it was all a game, and they let us know by admitting afterwards that there were no WMDs in Iraq after all. (Discussion of this has been typically dumb: If the USIraq had WMDs, we wouldn’t have dared to attack them in the first place; what happened to all the Iraqi nuclear experts who could have told us afterwards where they were or not?; WMD was the only “legal” argument the administration could make, regardless of its truth.) knew that

Bush has been attacked for saying that he knows of few if any mistakes he has made. But he is right! His job was to launch a major war in Iraq using the method he was told to use, namely insufficient means; and he did it. His biggest “mistake” may have been at the very beginning of the war when the US military defeated Saddam’s regime much more quickly than expected, but that was soon remedied: The infrastructure was left to rust, the museums were allowed to be pillaged, and the small allied force, while enough for conquest, was indeed insufficient for occupation.

Bush has been ridiculed for his “Mission Accomplished” event on a US battleship a month or two after the invasion. But he was right in two ways: Firstly, his mission, launching the ground war in Iraq, was accomplished; and secondly, he had indeed overthrown the Saddam government. The war was won; but the resistance was just beginning. Why nobody thinks we won in Iraq is a mystery: When Hitler conquered France, he won geopolitically, regardless of the Resistance. As has been said many times, winning the war does not mean winning the peace, which is what the present conflict is about. If the insurgents set up a functioning government in territory they control, we can then consider that we have no longer won the war.

Bush’s mission remains accomplished: the war continues as desired by his backers. Why do they want this war? It’s not totally clear, but we do know that they want war hysteria. We were in a mass psychosis for over forty years during Cold War hysteria, and there was a palpable lack of official enthusiasm for its sudden end. Clearly the War on Terror, of which the Iraq war is a part, is its replacement. The 9/11 caper was its formal beginning, since nothing big enough had been carried out by our “enemies.” (It was an improvement on the Cold War, which had no big bang at all.) It did not lead to as much hysteria as might have been expected, thanks to people’s admirable good sense and perhaps to Bush’s moderate manner. The fifth anniversary of 9/11 was apparently used to stoke the hysteria, but to no avail. It is one of Bush’s “failures”, maybe an intentional one.

Still, the war is going well, that is, it is going badly. The Sunni and Shiites are massacring each other, partly because we never had enough troops to keep things under more control. But maybe it would have made no difference. Their blood war is not in their interest – it keeps the US in Iraq, although once started it gets a life of its own. Could it be that we started it? After all, the current war is just episode four of a long term genocidal attack on the people of Mesopotamia (Iraq), the birthplace of civilization. First was the Iran-Iraq war, in which the US and Israel supplied both sides so as to keep them killing and eliminating each other; and Israel unlawfully bombed Iraq’s planned nuclear facility; then there was Operation Desert Storm, which drove Iraq out of the bizarre principality of Kuwait; then there were the sanctions, which wrecked the lives of the Iraqi people, not Saddam, and killed a quarter of a million children; and finally the sanctions were lifted and the US invaded Iraq, which was even worse. Why would we change our policy and not encourage internecine warfare?

The Democrats have won back a majority of Congress, and there are hopes that this will lead to an end to the war. But they would need to have the Presidency first and then abandon the core group, a radical and dangerous move. In the meantime, why would the core group change its policy? Current policy is wrecking what was once the most successful Arab country, neutralizing its natural hostility to fascist Israel, depressing our people and making them less effective, creating huge profits in the war industry, and discrediting American views of freedom and progress throughout the world. This war is the perfect war, unlike the Vietnam War, which we could lose, and did. This one we can neither lose nor win.

For Bush this is a great success, and yet at the same time a bitter pill. It is what happens when one becomes president for the wrong reason. He has to be extremely angry that he has been led into pursuing such an awful policy; and yet he copes with it by saying to himself that it is not really his policy, which is true in a way. One thing that clearly emerges from all this is that Bush is a very private person. But he has to be: He can’t say what he thinks and mention the good things he has done without betraying those who financed him and got him elected. And he can’t say that only 3,000 Americans have been killed compared to 50,000 in Vietnam, without creating a rather partisan uproar. (Indeed, many more would have been killed if 1960s medical procedures were still used, and so there are many more severely wounded; also, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed, and despite our ethnocentrism and racism, they do count.)

So Bush has to keep quiet. He doesn’t mind now if his brother Jeb runs in 2008, which is unlikely, or 2012, which is much more likely. Good luck to him, the little brat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

written January 16, 2007, and transferred here

Bush’s View, I think

This war in Iraq is pretty awful, but it’s not really up to me. That is the only explanation of why I don’t feel more anxious. I am a pretty straightforward guy, and I do feel bad for the families of those killed and for those killed and wounded, but this is the program. When Scott Pelley on Sunday’s Sixty Minutes asked, did I feel I had misled the American people, I responded “About what?” About weapons in Iraq, and the kind of war it was. With a relief I said no, not really. He didn’t ask – about who is behind the policy. That would have been more painful. But I never get asked that question.

Presiding over a bloody war and being attacked by politicians is painful, but it is not as bad as being impeached. Why? Because impeachment means you don’t know if you are going to keep your job, or where you will end up. No matter what happens in this war, I know I will not be impeached. That is part of the deal for us Bushes. Do what we ask, and you won’t have any trouble. And I have some power here too – if my backers and friends go after me, I can expose them. Of course they could forestall that by getting me killed, but all in all that’s a mess and they do not want to start that, any more than I do.

How do I know they are right about Iraq? I don’t -- but the simple fact is that there is a group of experts, my friends’ experts, that run everything. Of course they aren’t always right – they’re human. But they are in charge. Anybody who thinks that order of things can be changed through politics is dreaming. If I wasn’t president, there would be someone else – and they would be doing the same thing!

I’m a pretty happy man now, actually. In six years I have learned quite a lot about foreign and domestic policy, and can fancy myself something of an expert! I don’t have to worry about what I say, now that the 2006 election is over. I no longer have to listen to Donald Rumsfeld and pretend that our policy was well thought out. I know the policy was chosen at the beginning, by our friends, and we went with it. It’s as simple as that. It seems to be a policy of permanent war, which is rather depressing, but there is more to it than that. Actually, I don’t fully understand it, and I don’t have to.

It’s great being king of the world, and I’m looking forward to the next two years. After that, it’s not my responsibility – my friends will have to find appropriate new candidates or persuade the current ones, not me.

2007-07-16T06:58:00.000-07:00

Yeah, politics again

There is a lot of crosstalk and miscommunication going on in regard to Bush and his critics. Here is what the problem seems to be: The critics think Bush is stubborn and deluded, while Bush seems relatively at peace with himself.

This is because Bush believes he is doing what most of us do most days: We don't make up what we want to do, we carry out policy. Like the soldiers in Iraq who say "We've got a job to do": bless 'em, they mostly are not defending or arguing a policy; they admit they are under constraint and are doing what they are told to do. They are not saying that they are bringing the benefits of the American empire to Iraq and Afghanistan; they may say they are bringing democracy, but that does not sound too brutal and it is not their main point.

Similarly, Bush is carrying out a policy. He may have said he is the "decider", but that is not his focus. Thus, while his opponents use arguments about what is going on to argue for a change in policy, Bush already has the policy, and his arguments are merely trivia to justify it. Whether they make sense is not important to him since, regardless, he is carrying out a policy.

Bush may feel dissatisfied carrying out a pre-chosen policy, but he knows that is how America works, at least in his lifetime. He can look down on the childish assumptions of his opponents, which he knows are wrong: We don't make up our own policy -- what an absurd power vacuum that would mean! No, everyone -- government, business, established groups, lobby groups, organized labor, service groups, the public, etc. -- are all in place and doing their thing. For it to be otherwise would take a real, huge effort.

Carrying out a policy should be so familiar to us, just as watching what we say should be -- they are both our normal everyday behavior at work, and often elsewhere. Saying what we think, and expecting to participate or at least observe decisions in foreign policy, is something we want to have; but unfortunately, it is still out of reach, for us and for Bush. At least we can say what we think, but it has almost no effect. Although he should be, he is no freer at the office than we are.

So Bush is following a policy, like most of us. Have I missed something? Of course: if he is following a policy, where is it coming from? Did he, brilliant man that he is, make it up? Certainly not. It came from those who tell him what to do. Who are they? That is the most important political question. Or maybe it isn't, if we can't do anything about it. But at least so that our political discourse can be grounded on reality, we should know, and make it our business to know. Bush may never have been asked that question by a reporter, although he looked worried once when he thought he was about to be. We know the outline of who they are -- George Schultz, Felix Rohatyn, George Soros, are examples of point men for them. Beyond that we know that they are connected to High Finance, the Bank of England, Bilderbergers, etc. But that is not enough.

Equally important to knowing what they are doing, we need to note that they are not necessarly American, which has grave significance. Is America their friend? Only when it is doing what they want. Basically, America is an enemy -- the worst thing they could imagine happened back in 1781: a colony revolted, won, and became an exponent of anti-predator, anti-colonial goals -- and then ended up the world's only superpower! A dream come true for humanity, but the opposite for them. The US is thus always a threat, and must always be discredited. Here in the US we may not be very aware of this, but overseas the main political effect of the Iraq War is that the US is despised. It's like the good old Cold War all over again. And this is not just a simple reaction to America's apparent brutality and perversity; it is regularly promoted by political and media figures overseas. In short, in carrying out the designated Policy, Bush is betraying the nation he was sworn to protect, whether he knows it or not.

Bush may not be stupid, but his mind showed no interest in world politics until he became President at age 54. It was too busy enjoying partying, drugging, making deals, managing the Texas Rangers, etc. Like Clinton, he is a people person, but Clinton was also an idea person and Bush is not. Unlike Clinton, Bush apparently never studied international relations at university. He just has a different mind-set from a serious president. For his bosses, seeming stupid is not a bad thing -- indeed, anything can be turned around to their benefit. It means that he doesn't fully understand what is happening to him, so he doesn't have to lie. He can be sincere and appealing. Indeed, outside of the official Policy he can pursue whatever dreams he wants, and his values there have been quite good. He has promoted blacks to higher positions than ever before, and without a lot of chest-thumping; and now blacks are suddenly being accepted just like everyone else, partly as a result. Similarly, he has not personally demonized Muslims, even though his foreign policy has. In fact he seems to identify with the offbeat and unappreciated, whether Muslim or himself. He said before he was elected that he believes in a humble foreign policy, quite the opposite of what he has done, but again it has given it a more humane image. Indeed he could have been a Democrat were it not for the family tradition. (And Gore might well have "followed the Policy" just as Bush did, if he had become President, and as he did regarding the environment, doing very little, when he was Vice President.)

In contrast, Dick Cheney seems nasty. He pushed for war in Iraq and has pushed for it ever since. What kind of vicious individual is he? Not quite as vicious as he sounds -- he too is just following the Policy. He was given the job specs in 2000 and he accepted them. He said recently that he never sought the Vice Presidency, but someone offered it to him. Who? Certainly not Bush initially. Again, this is where our focus should be. An political operative who said some nice things about him eight years ago was queried recently by Bill Moyers. He responded that the Cheney today is not the Cheney he had known. Certainly not -- Cheney is following the Program, more than being himself.

What were Cheney and Bush told that made them willing to take such awful jobs? Did they really believe that terrorism was such a threat? Maybe they did, and then they settled into their jobs and all that went with them. They know that once they do they can't change their minds. President Johnson similarly went along with expanding the Vietnam War while expressing misgivings, and could do nothing about it until he chose to suddenly resign from running for reelection in 1968. Bush and Cheney are saved from that last possibility.

If the policy is war, what value is there in withdrawing our troops from Iraq? It merely means that war must be intensified in Afghanistan or begun elsewhere. And will a Democrat refuse to do this? Consider this: every President since 1980 who wasn't a Bush has been under brutal assault while in office: Reagan was literally within an inch of dying and making way for Bush senior; Clinton was actually impeached. Clearly the wiggle room is minimal. And every previous President since Eisenhower came to a bad end. So what is the point? Try to get the candidate that we like most killed? Meanwhile Bush knows that he is golden and that he will not be impeached -- that only happens to Presidents who stray off the reservation, so far. So he is staying the course, and glad he is a Bush.

Perhaps if we were to focus on the real issues: Who is running the show? Who is Bush & Cheney's boss? What is their policy? Do they want permanent war? (worse for our kids than the Social Security crisis.) What shall we do about it? -- then we might make a little progress away from the childish fantasyland that we inhabit now. Maybe other countries might be able to take action if we could not, or maybe we could make productive alliances. It is certainly dangerous -- maybe staying in our fantasy is more comfortable.

One great advantage of a wartime economy to our true enemies is that civil liberties can be trashed and greater power can flow to the President. This has already happened, although there doesn't seem to be as much fruit as might be expected. But, as was recently pointed out, the danger is not what has been done, but the precedent it will set for future Presidents. It seems that we are living in a temporary dream, and some future President, whether Republican or Democrat, will suddenly use the powers that Bush has granted himself but only used in a relatively small way. We need to be ready for this possibility too.

This may explain the seemingly insufficient results for all the effort made to put this country in crisis mode, especially if we view 9/11 as a secret US operation rather than a Muslim one. Or maybe Bush is gently resisting pressures, and so the outcome is not what one might expect. Alternatively it is a success, if one considers the huge financial expense. Either way, we the public are not doing it ourselves, but are being dragged along by the Policy. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid oppose impeachment of Bush and Cheney (although it could make her President!), which shows the power of the boss cabal, but we can at least seek to have that impeachment take place, as a message -- it has been pointed out -- that we oppose and do not accept the civil and military changes for the worse that have taken place under this Bush administration. That, and focusing on the boss cabal, may be reachable goals for us at this time.

2005-06-17T17:47:00.000-07:00

I hate to start with politics, bcause it can be so tiresome, but here goes anyway.

Fifteen years ago -- can you believe it ? -- was Operation Desert Storm. President George I invaded Iraq from Kuwait after setting up forces in Kuwait and the previously sacrosanct Saudi Arabia. After 100 hours, the invasion ended. There were reasons -- Bush could not doublecross the allies he had brought into this (disgusting little) war. And there was another reason: Iraq was an inherently unstable country, with three minorities inside, one of which was also outside. If the US went in and occupied Iraq, how would it ever get out? Better just be glad that it got its new bases and a chance to tear down Iraq from the outside.

But after a couple of years, or less, the thought came: "How would we ever get out? Duh! That's exactly what we want!" And so the oligarchs worked to get us into a war in Iraq. Luckily Bill Clinton evidently saw through the charade and kept us out -- but at a cost. They had him impeached because of this offense (although that was not said publicly), a cautionary warning to future Presidents, and they hamstrung him in his conduct of foreign policy, which damaged our relations in Yugoslavia and Russia among other things. Luckily, Clinton was an inveterate womanizer, and they went after him on that basis, with Whitewater as a backup. Suppose he had been pure? The only choice would have been a bullet.

Anyway they had better luck in 2000 with two complaisant candidates for President. Considering the pain and torture of having a Democratic malfeaser, which I remembered from the Vietnam era, I was selfishly glad that George II won. I don't think the last four years would have been much different, although it seems nobody talks about that. Anyway, he followed the orders and took us back into Iraq. One of the goals was to make Iraqis miserable, which was predictable since the country had gotten uppity, being the only non-Christian country wityh both population and oil. But that's hard for even the Republicans to do, considering that they were already terminally miserable after a dozen years of sanctions. In fact, the US kindly got rid of Saddam Hussein, who had been supported in the past by -- the US; and it got rid of the economic sanctions, which the US had laid on the people of Iraq. It seems one can only be so bad before it turns around.

So now we are there and can't leave, we can complain how awful it is, which the oligarchs like since they like us to have the blues. We can say "Just say leave!", but that doesn't work, although it might not be worse than the alternative. They've got it made. For now anyway.