As talk of impeachment increases, one crime is clear: Bush and his inner
circle are guilty of criminal negligence. The only question is whether they
committed ordinary negligence, willful blindness, recklessness, or gross
negligence.
Criminal negligence is the failure to use reasonable care -- either by doing
something that a reasonable person would not do, or not doing something that
a reasonable person would do. In the case of Bush and company, the facts
speak for themselves. In August 2001, the CIA presented President Bush with
a written report titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S." In
response, Bush did nothing. In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission,
Condoleeza Rice reported that prior to Sept. 11, 2001, the Administration
decided to do nothing substantial about the Al Qaeda threat. "Why did we
wait?", she asked rhetorically, and then answered, in effect, that the 9/11
attacks provided the casus belli to enable them to mount a major military
response. After invading Afghanistan, the Administration decided not to
pursue Bin Laden aggressively when they had him cornered, but rather left
the job to unreliable Afghan allies. In addition, they failed to invest the
resources needed to stabilize Afghanistan. As a result, that country is
falling into anarchy, providing a haven for terrorists and narco-merchants.
OPPOSITION TO ATTACKING IRAQ. Before occupying Iraq, United
Nations inspections had resulted in weakening Iraq militarily. The consensus
among experts was that Iraq had no alliance with Bin Laden and posed no
serious threat to its neighbors or to the United States. Virtually all of
the world's leaders believed that the United States should support continued
inspections. Moreover, most experts, including the President's own father,
earlier had warned that overthrowing Saddam Hussein could easily lead to
civil war. Nevertheless, Bush rushed to war, in time to benefit Republicans
in the 2004 election. The Administration ignored the advice of its military
and occupied Iraq without enough troops to maintain peace. Even with the
troops they had, however, they could have done much more to discourage
lawlessness. Instead, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld joked about the
looting. Immediately after the invasion, to make negotiations easier by
reducing anti-American sentiment, the Administration could have announced
that American troops would withdraw from Iraq within a strict timetable,
such as one or two years, and could have asked the United Nations to oversee
the transition to a new government. Instead, the U. S. ran the country like
a colony and poured concrete at military bases that appear to be permanent.
Even after the decision to ice the United Nations, the U.S. could have
invited representatives from all the major elements in Iraq to form a
transitional government committed to preserving national unity. Instead, the
U.S. reduced the Sunnis to third-class status, formed a partnership with the
Shiites and Kurds, and accepted the Shiite/Kurd plan to divide Iraq (thus
leaving the Sunnis with no oil).
LEVELS OF NEGLIGENCE. Many commentators believe that the troubles in
Iraq are due to poor planning and/or incompetence. If that's the case, Bush
and his people are only guilty of ordinary criminal negligence for being
indifferent to the consequences of their actions. Maybe they didn't foresee
dangers because they didn't pay attention. Reading the mind of the Bush
inner circle is a spectator sport. Given their secrecy and deception, it's
impossible to know their true motives with certainty. We can only draw
conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. Surely the Administration is
at least guilty of the more serious crime of willful blindness. If they
didn't know, they should've known. Maybe they merely put themselves in
positions where they would not learn what they needed to know. Juries
convict smugglers who transport drugs without finding out the contents in
their package. The actual situation is even more serious. At a minimum, the
Administration is guilty of the more serious crime of malfeasance, or
recklessness -- they were aware of the risks but knowingly decided that
being able to win the next election was worth it.
THE CRIME OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. In fact, however, the Administration
is guilty of gross negligence, the most serious level of criminal
negligence. Now, after more than five years, the record is overwhelming:
this Administration wants chaos. It consciously spreads conflict for its own
benefit. Gross negligence is willful disregard for the safety of others. It
is willful and wanton misconduct -- a conscious violation of other peoples'
rights to safety. If a horse owner saddles a horse with a broken saddle,
knowing the equipment could fail at any time, that owner is guilty of gross
negligence when the equipment breaks and the rider is injured. During a
recent visit to the Middle East, Tom Hayden reported, "My contacts
repeatedly asked: Is the de facto dismemberment of Iraq a deliberate
American strategy or a blowback based on ignorance, or both?" Hayden did not
offer a definite answer to their question.
THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. But Cheney and Rumsfeld
are neither stupid nor ignorant. They know what they're doing and why.
Hayden commented, "The most reasoned answer may lie in Robert Dreyfuss's new
book, Devil's Game, which documents how the United States has flirted with
and funded a generation of Islamic extremists as an alternative to secular
Arab nationalism, either as a divide-and-conquer strategy or a means to
impose privatization of state-run economies." The Dreyfuss analysis touches
on what has been a bi-partisan United States strategy since the end of the
Cold War. In August 1998, with a Democrat in the White House, Diana
Johnstone argued "blasting the nation-state barriers…(results in) a new type
of joint colonial rule." One year later, prior to Bush becoming President
and the 9/11 attacks, Ellen Ray and Bill Schaap wrote: >>"The western
powers, having successfully re-Balkanized the Balkans, find this Nineteenth
Century tactic to their liking. Indications are that there is a serious and
far-flung effort under way to Balkanize Africa, redrawing its borders. Three
of the largest nations on that continent, Congo, Angola, and Sudan, face
violent struggles to divide their territories…. Learning from the breakups
both of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia, or more to the point, having
long-planned for such eventualities, the U.S. recognizes that it is easier
to dominate a region when the governmental units are small."
DESTABILIZING AFRICA AS POLICY. In July 1998, the New York
Times reported that aid officials in the region had concluded that the U.S.
welcomed instability in Sudan as a way to weaken that country, which was a
fundamentalist threat to Egypt, a key American ally. According to the Times:
"As the war (in Sudan) drags on, the United States and its
allies in Western Europe have done relatively little to push the two sides
to the negotiating table, diplomats say. Indeed, Secretary of State
Madeleine K. Albright met with rebel leaders in December and openly
expressed moral support for their cause. One reason is that peace does not
necessarily suit American interests, aid officials said. American foreign
policy in the region hinges on protecting the secular Government in Egypt,
the largest recipient of United States aid, and containing Islamic
fundamentalism. 'An unstable Sudan amounts to a stable Egypt,' said a
United Nations official, insisting on anonymity."
Some neoconservatives have spoken openly about their deeper
strategy. Michael Ledeen, an influential neocon thinker at the American
Enterprise Institute, wrote:
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our
own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day…. Our
enemies…attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to
advance our historic mission."
This quote prompted The Crisis Papers' Bernard Weiner to
write:
"This fits in with a theory out there that holds
that the neoconservatives thrive on chaos, stirring things up in the world
and then, as the global supercop, stepping in as the only one with the
money and the expertise to help calm things down. But peace comes with a
price: control of the situation remains with the supercop."
THE GLOBAL POLICEMAN. The Clinton Administration tried to take
the "military card" away from the Republicans by bombing more countries that
any President had ever done. To firmly establish the Republican Party as
"stronger" militarily, Bush needed to undertake massive military action.
Invading Iraq served that purpose quite nicely. In 1999, prior to the 9/11
attacks, Ray and Schaap wrote that Clinton's foreign policy was designed "to
implement the administration's self-appointed role as global policeman (and)
is now defined by its evolving military unilateralism, at home and abroad."
They quoted Secretary of State Albright, who described the Clinton
Administration's August 1998 missile assaults against Sudan and Afghanistan
as "the war of the future." Bush took Clinton's approach to a higher level.
The elite was well aware of the likely consequences of their militaristic
foreign policy. While Clinton was President, former CIA Director Robert
Gates wrote, "As potential official American targets are 'hardened,'
terrorists will simply turn to non-official targets -- businesses, schools,
tourists and so on. We can perhaps channel the threat away from the United
States Government, but not away from Americans." Gates also predicted,
"Another unacknowledged and unpleasant reality is that a more militant
approach toward terrorism would, in virtually all cases, require us to act
violently and alone. No other power will join us on a crusade against
terrorism." George Bush has fulfilled Gates' prediction of growing
unilateralism.
THE GOAL IS TO WIN AT ALL COSTS. To gain power over a
nightmare, we need to name it for what it is. Through their acts of omission
and commission, Bush and his people are guilty of gross negligence motivated
by the desire to inflame foreign threats, rally the nation, and elect
Republicans. Their apparent incompetence is a charade, as is their effort to
prevent Iraq from splintering. As widely predicted, Iraq is immersed in
civil war, with mounting vengeance and counter-vengeance that is creating
more terrorists than it is eliminating. This strategy will intentionally
produce a never-ending war that can never be won. But permanent war could
help Republicans maintain their hold on power. The fact that other
Administrations have been guilty of similar crimes does not negate the fact
that this Administration has been a flagrant violator and must be held
accountable. When a property owner is warned repeatedly about faulty wiring
in his building and does nothing to correct the problem, only to collect a
huge insurance payment after the building burns down, he is guilty of gross
negligence. Politicians who sacrifice the common good to get re-elected are
guilty of the same crime and deserve to be punished.
Wade Hudson is Editor of the
Progressive Resource Catalog
and can be reached at whudson@igc.org
.
