As we've learned over the past four-plus years, no matter what the spin
justifications employed by Bush&Co. spokesmen -- terrorism,
national-security, freedom's on the march -- it's usually the politics,
stupid.
We were told this from the inside by John DiIulio early in Bush's first
term. When the ex-Administrator of Bush's faith-based programs resigned,
he let slip some powerful truths during an
interview with Esquire's Ron Suskind:
There is no precedent in any modern White House for what
is going on
in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is
everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm.
It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. ... When policy analysis is
just backfill, to back up a political maneuver, you'll get a lot of
ooops." "
"An unamed 'current senior White House official' [said] pretty much
the same thing: 'Many of us feel it's our duty -- our obligation as
Americans -- to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy,
there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues.
It's just kids on Big Wheels, who talk politics and know nothing. It's
depressing. DPC [Domestic Policy Council] meetings are a farce'.
So here we have military spokesmen saying the U.S. plans
to start withdrawing a large number of troops by mid-2006. Does this mean
the Iraq War will be coming to an end soon? As if. Remember: It's the
politics, stupid.
Just the year should be the tip-off. Yes, that's right: There are midterm
elections coming up in November of 2006, and Bush&Co. absolutely,
positively must keep control of the House of Representatives, especially
if impeachment hearings and possible prison sentences are to be avoided.
So, since national polls increasingly reveal that Americans feel the war
is not worth it and that Bush has botched the whole occupation, a
significant number of troops in Iraq will be redeployed elsewhere, at
least temporarily. Mercenaries, i.e., Iraqi security forces and
"contractors" trained and paid for by American monies, will be expected to
help protect U.S. interests and bases.
GENUINE WITHDRAWAL OR POLITICAL FEINT?
Probably by design, it is not clear whether Bush's plan to withdraw troops
from Iraq is a military ruse -- to return them "in-country," if necessary,
after the 2006 election -- or is part of a sincere, long-term plan to
bring virtually all of them home and thus extricate the U.S. from the
quagmire the incompetent Bush Administration got them into in the first
place.
Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan makes the case for the latter
explanation in "Is
America's War Winding Up?":
"It is difficult to draw any other conclusion from the just-completed
Rumsfeld mission. Standing beside our defense secretary in Baghdad, Prime
Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari called for the speedy withdrawal of U.S.
forces. The top U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, also standing beside
Rumsfeld, said 'fairly substantial' withdrawals of the 135,000 U.S. troops
in Iraq could begin by spring...
"Casey's comment lends credence to a secret British defense memo that
described U.S. officials as favoring a 'relatively bold reduction in force
numbers.' The memo pointed to a drawdown of Allied forces from 170,000
today to 66,000 by next summer, a cut of over 60 percent.
"Previously, the administration had denounced war critics who spoke of
timetables, arguing that they signal the enemy to go to earth, build its
strength, and strike weakened U.S. forces during the pullout. Now,
America's top general is talking timetables."
DEMOCRACY AT THE POINT OF A BAYONET
As my earlier comments suggest, I think the U.S.-leaving-Iraq theory is
testament to a scam. Given the track record of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, my
suspicion is that not much has changed with regard to their goals in Iraq
and in the Greater Middle East; their desire to "stay the course" in
fulfilling those objectives remains the same, though they may have to make
a tactical withdrawal of some forces in the service of that long-term
strategy. In short, the "withdrawal," whether or not it ever happens, is
little more than spin for political gain.
If the U.S. decides in 2006 to keep all its troops activated in Iraq due
to increased fighting, it can always push the meme that it was planning to
bring the troops home but those dastardly terrorists on the ground
prevented that peace-loving move. Spin, spin, spin.
Bush&Co. came into power with the cockamamie ivory-tower idea of
introducing "democracy" at the point of a bayonet throughout the entire
Middle East, maybe even the world, and they still want to do just that.
Indeed, there's a bill making its way through Congress -- see
"All
Democracy, All the Time" -- that would make the "spreading of
democracy" abroad the law of the land, not just an Administration venture.
Bush&Co.'s ulterior motives have to do with empire, oil, profit, and,
especially, using their adventures and wars as a way of garnering,
maintaining and expanding their domestic political control.
If Bush&Co. were truly and seriously to remove U.S. forces from Iraq, it
would look as if they were jettisoning their hegemonic goals in that
shaky, explosive region. (Of course, the hardened military bases no doubt
would stay at the "invitation" of the host Iraq government.) In effect,
U.S. withdrawal would signify that the neo-cons' crusade against militant
Islam was being abandoned, or at least greatly scaled back, in the face of
overwhelming hostility of the locals -- and world, and American public
opinion -- against it.
Worse still for the Bush Administration, they would tacitly be admitting
that, by invading and occupying Iraq, they had made a terrible mistake.
And this regime, as we all know, does not make mistakes -- Bush says God
talks to him, and he is doing The Lord's work, and that's the end of that
discussion.
THE OPTION OF DECLARING VICTORY
Of course, there is a face-saving way out for the Administration. Bush
could declare victory and pull the U.S. troops back home to ticker-tape
parades down main street. You can almost hear him now: "My fellow
Americans: We were determined to end the tyrannical rule of a brutal
dictator, and we have done that. We were determined to aid the Iraqis in
establishing a functioning democracy in their own country, and we have
done that. We were determined to train Iraqi security forces to defend and
police their own country, and we have done that. Therefore, truly, we can
say 'Mission Accomplished' and withdraw our military forces with heads
held high. What happens in Iraq after we leave is now up to the Iraqis
themselves."
But even if Bush&Co. were to go that intelligent route -- a highly
unlikely scenario -- no doubt they would have ignored the larger lesson to
be learned: You don't win guerrilla wars. All the guerrillas have to do is
keep you tied down, forever; they don't have to win, just grind you down,
death by a thousand cuts. If you don't win the "hearts & minds" of the
locals, you lose.
And, once it's clear to the locals that the invaders can't win (and this
may already have happened in Iraq), ordinary citizens start making deals
with the guerrillas; the result is that the native security forces and
government institutions are even more infiltrated with informers and
agents. This certainly was the case in Vietnam.
Five sets of advisors told five different Presidents that military
stalemate was the best that could be hoped for in Vietnam, especially
given that the South Vietnamese army was riddled with informers; but each
of those five presidents believed they would be the one to snatch victory
from the jaws of defeat; Daniel Ellsberg, an insider par excellence, wrote
about this history in his
invaluable
memoir "Secrets." Nearly 60,000 American troops died as a result
of that hubris, along with several million Vietnamese. Apparently, the
only one who came to understand the lesson was Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara -- which is one of the reasons he opposes Bush's war in Iraq
today.
Civil wars or nationalist wars to throw out invaders generally end in
political settlements, not military ones. Vietnam today is still run by
the Communist Party but its economy is largely semi-capitalist, and it has
trade pacts beloved by American corporations doing business there; the
Irish Republican Army just the other day said it is willing to lay down
its weapons and seek victories through democratic elections and political
negotiations.
If the U.S. were to leave Iraq, thus removing the main reason for the
nationalist insurgency, it is likely that the various ethnic and religious
forces in that country would work out inclusive political arrangements
that could stabilize the situation. Their solutions might not be those the
U.S. prefers -- it's possible that the new Iraq would be much like
Islamist Iran next door, and would be a constant thorn in the side of
America's foreign policy. But the point is that U.S. troops no longer
would be targets on the ground in that country, nor would Iraq be a magnet
for foreign terrorists.
BUSH'S OBSESSION: BOLTON AT THE U.N.
The fact that Bush is determined to force square-peg John Bolton into the
round United Nations hole is further confirmation, along with "staying the
course" in Iraq, that the neo-cons are still in charge of U.S.
foreign/military policy. Bush had to use a recess appointment since the
Senate would not approve this perjurer and habitual bully to be America's
official spokesman at the U.N.
Bush/Cheney want Bolton there and there he will go. Why is it so important
that Bolton be at the U.N? The neo-con strategic philosophy requires a
weakening of all international institutions that potentially could get in
the way of America's hegemonic adventures in various hotspots around the
globe. (See "How We
Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer").
Recall that Cheney/Rumsfeld didn't want the U.S. to go to the United
Nations prior to "Shock&Awe"; they agreed reluctantly (at the behest of
Tony Blair and Colin Powell) in order to get a fig-leaf approval from the
Security Council to cover their embarrassingly illegal military invasion
of Iraq that they had agreed on more than a year before. Bush&Co. don't
want to risk a similar diplomatic morass as they move toward potential
military action against Iran and Syria -- nor do they want any serious
political attack coming from the U.N. about Bush's Iraq policy.
Mad Dog Bolton will be the guy tasked to coerce and threaten U.N.
diplomats to approve of or at least acquiesce in those military campaigns,
and to head up the "reform" -- read: terminal weakening -- of that
international body. Ergo, Bolton goes to the United Nations, Senate be
damned. (Wouldn't it be funny if the U.N. refused to accept Bolton's
credentials as legitimate?)
Bush should be made to pay a heavy political price for this slap in the
face to the Senate, but what can be done at this stage is not clear. It's
possible that Patrick Fitzgerald will include Bolton in his upcoming
CIA-leak indictments.
JUDGE ROBERTS AS A STEALTH NEO-CON
Domestically, that same in-your-face, neo-con approach can be seen in
Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. Those hoping
that Bush would appoint a more moderate-conservative candidate, in the
mold of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, were dreaming.
The operating procedure of the Bush Administration is: Take it while it
can be took. If anybody tries to stop you, run over them. If, on rare
occasion, determined bipartisan opposition blocks your path, find another
way around the obstacle. If that won't work, back off a bit, bide your
time and try again later. And, in the meantime, slime whatever opposition
emerges.
Roberts is a clever choice: He's affable, bright, young, with little in
the way of an overt judicial record on which he can be bashed; when his
name was announced, his confirmation was regarded as a sure thing.
But, as his political history indicates -- from his machinations in
Florida in getting the 2000 recount stopped, to his views on civil rights
and civil liberties -- he's a stealth far-right conservative, who, if and
when approved, will significantly alter the law for decades, and not in
the direction that will bring credit to the court or the country. Just
look at his recent ruling that confirms Bush's near-dictatorial powers
during "wartime."
And, of course, the situation only will get worse when Rehnquist resigns
or dies -- likely to be soon -- thus giving Bush the opportunity for
another far-right appointment to the Supreme Court.
Senate Democrats should persist in trying to get the required documents
from Roberts' tenure at the Solicitor-General's office, and should grill
him hard on key issues he would face if he were to gain a seat on the
Supreme Court: the right to privacy, a woman's right to choose, civil
liberties, affirmative action, the concept of checks-and-balances between
the branches of government (especially during "wartime"), etc. etc. And,
depending on his answers, and whether he furnishes the required documents,
determine whether a filibuster is in order.
To let Roberts walk basically unexamined into the Supreme Court would be a
disgraceful abdication of senatorial responsibilities. (Bad precedent: The
Dems did just that the other day, when not one of their senators showed up
to question Karen Hughes on her nomination to be an assistant secretary of
state for propaganda.)
WE CAN GIVE IN OR FIGHT
In short, what we see in both Iraq and with Bolton/Roberts, is the Rove-ian
political machine working overtime (before Fitzgerald's potential
indictments are unsealed), mostly for short-term political gain.
We in the progressive/moderate opposition either can roll over and allow
this greedy, power-hungry cabal to take what they want, or we can fight
them every step of the way.
Out of love of country, and deep respect for our Constitution and
democratic traditions, we will never, never, give in. Our souls, the soul
of America, and our dedication to learning and speaking truth to power,
require it.
Copyright 2005, by Bernard Weiner
