America’s “Separate but Equal” Foreign Intervention Policy – There in Black & White

There is a blindness and weakness in US foreign policy when it comes to developing, articulating and executing missions of intervention. The rationales developed and used for public consumption simply do not add up. They lack any coherent moral or policy theme or values that could support a sensible organizing principle other than themes based upon hegemony and racism. One would like to think that the US is somehow better than such amoral behavior, but read on.

Reports currently coming in from the Democratic Republic of Congo about cruel massacres that took place over this Christmas have trouble gaining attention in the media. So much attention is paid to the Israeli attacks on Palestinians that the deaths in the Congo go seemingly unnoticed, or at least unremarked in the US press. Yet over 400 villagers have been brutally murdered and thousands displaced while the world sits by with hands folded. And the US, who claims the lead in eradicating such attacks through a “war on terror” is embarrassingly silent.

Consider the following report posted by the BBC:
News of the attacks in north-eastern DR Congo began to come out after the weekend when the Ugandan army accused the LRA of hacking to death 45 civilians in a Catholic church near Doruma.

Bruno Mitewo, head of the Catholic aid agency, says that from information they have collated from their parishes on the ground, more than 400 civilians have died in the attacks. He said that in Faradje 150 civilians had died, almost 75 people in Duru and 215 in Doruma. The victims had been hacked to death and forced into fires, he said.

"All villages were burned by rebels... we don't know where exactly the population is because all the villages are empty," he told the BBC. "We have almost 6,500 displaced who are refugees in the parishes of the Catholic Church around the city of Dungu, more than 20,000 people displaced are running to the mountains," he said. Those who were hiding in the bush and forest were mainly the young, as the LRA tends to kidnap children and recruit them as fighters, he said.

A fair question would be to ask why the international community would sit by mutely as such brutal destruction of human life repeatedly unfolds. The LRA has been terrorizing these Congolese villagers for more than a decade and its forces are said to number less than 700. Yet the armies of Uganda, Sudan and DR Congo cannot control them. Where are the “technical support” personnel and the weapons aid contributions from the West? They can be sent to the Middle East, to Georgia and to Columbia but not to the Congo. If the US can waste billions of dollars on Blackwater agents that seem to thrive on the type of violence inflicted by the LRA rebels, could the US not lend these primitive mercenaries to be used by DR Congo military to hunt down LRA forces in the jungles of the Congo and help protect the innocent villagers? While the behavior of Blackwater agents in Iraq is unsupportable, placing them in an environment better suited to their talents and expertise would seem a more useful deployment since the US cannot spare any Ranger or Special Forces details because of the quagmire in Iraq.

When ethnic cleansing was occurring in Caucasian populated Bosnia, international forces were sent in to halt the war crimes and “crimes against humanity.” Are the people of the Congo less deserving of protection under those international standards? Could the reason be that their skin color does not warrant the same intervention? Are the Congolese villagers less equal than other people on behalf of whom humanitarian intervention has been invoked? Where is the “war on terror?”

A follow up question would be the following: If the people in the Congo who are regularly and repeatedly being subjected to terrorism by the LRA were white or Jewish, would the US be responding in the same way? If the villages were located on proven oil reserves, would the US response be the same? The questions are more than rhetorical, but the answers to them are quite obvious. In that regard, the old policy of “separate but equal” seems to have continuing vitality. The US publicly espouses policies against global terrorism and violations of human rights to defeat democratic governments. However, when it comes to taking action to carry out those policies, some world citizens are apparently more deserving of protection than others. If the victims are Black Africans, it is okay to sit by and watch the massacres.

To paraphrase what the US Supreme Court stated in the Dred Scott Decision, the Black man has no rights worth protecting or with which white men need be concerned. That is the separate but equal philosophy that the US has been following to date, publicly denounce terrorism and human rights violations generally, but provide resources only to situations where perceived interests of whites are involved. But now that an African American will assume the Oval Office, careful scrutiny should be applied to see whether such attitudes that were perhaps to be expected from George W. Bush will be carried forward by Obama’s administration. Change should be expected not because Obama is of African descent, but rather because he claims a more intelligent, balanced and humane platform than Bush. We should aspire to examine the problems of the world through human eyes, and not just white eyes.

Perhaps when flagrant violations of human rights, open terrorism and genocide are taking place, some action is appropriate. Perhaps the size of one’s wallet or natural resources to be exploited, strength of a religious lobby or color of skin should not be the factors that determine whether international intervention on behalf of declared minimum standards of international law and decency will occur. Perhaps...

[See source BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7804470.stm]

Insanity of War and Escalation

The current “offensive” by Israel on the Gaza strip has all the earmarks of the inherent insanity of war and escalation. The euphemism of a “military offensive” does not truly mask the fact that it is a deliberate massacre. As such, it has no justification. That by no means suggests that indiscriminate rocket fire by Hamas into Israeli towns is justified either. The point is that NEITHER is justified. Equally clear is that neither action is likely to yield any positive impact or move the sides anywhere nearer a solution to an age old conflict. Objectively, it is simply senseless bloodletting and venting for its own sake. Insanity of the first water.

Some topics are difficult to discuss because of emotion and intransigent views. Mention abortion or race and discussion quickly becomes irrational. The same seems true of any critical examination of Israeli – Palestinian conflict. Most want to jump to partisan sides and engage in unproductive defensive illogic. Israel deserves to live in pace with its neighbors. That is a given. Palestinian people deserve to have their own truly autonomous state, a place where they can live in peace and be able to prosper without restraint from an overseer like Israel. That too is a given. The quandary is how both objectives can be attained. Massive airstrikes that kill dozens hundreds of people and dozens of innocent women and children is not a step in that direction. Neither is indiscriminate lobbing of rockets into the backyard of your neighbor to create fear and panic.

The public must be released from the bondage of irrational fealty to the Israeli cause that seeks to rationalize and justify any action, regardless how ill conceived, hate based and inhumane in impact. To allow critical discussion is actually in the best interest of Israeli people and the world. A responsible parent would not sit and justify a child taking a rifle to school to kill and maim hundreds of school children, and then justify it by saying that the child was being bullied by other students. Yes, the bullying was wrong and should be stopped. But the actions of shooting and maiming many innocent people, and even those who were bullying is not rational, moral or justifiable. Likewise, we should not be expected to rationalize and excuse any and every action by Israel toward the provocations by Palestinians.

Israel has imposed a chokehold on the Palestinian people for many years, long before Hamas was elected as the Gaza Strip representative. Indeed, it could be argued that the single strongest reason for the rise of Hamas in the area has been Israeli government oppression. The Israeli government has treated the Gaza Strip like a Nazi Germany Jewish Ghetto, using cheap Palestinian labor for Israeli backed projects, but strictly limiting any food or resources available to the civilian population. When irritated, with or without some provocation, the Israelis have responded with disproportionate force and violence to exact collective punishment.

The sad observation is that violence and cruel inhumanity begets the same. Having learned the bitter impact of a policy of subjugation and genocide under Hitler, Israel now uses those same tactics, albeit modernized, against the Palestinians. It is not unlike the abused child who becomes the abusive parent. The main difference between the Israelis and the Nazi storm troopers is that the Israelis have the power now and in Hitler’s Germany they did not. Yet even in the Ghettos and prison camps, Jews formed a resistance. Is it reasonable to expect that Palestinians would not resist?

Although Israel and its apologists may try to characterize the current actions as “defensive” action, that is transparently false. Less than five Israelis have been hurt or killed by the rockets fired by Hamas, while more than 300 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli action. The supporters of such action argue that massive retaliation will stop the Hamas rockets. But that has not and will never work, except by the implementation of the Israeli’s “final solution” of extermination of all Palestinians. As long as Israel continues to target hospitals, refugee camps and universities and kill civilians (at least 51 women and children, some as young as a few months old at last count, as “collateral damage” of course) in the holding pen of the Gaza Strip, more martyrs will be created and the effect is exponential.

While Israel and its apologists decry as “irresponsible” the statements of Iran’s Ahmadinejad about “wiping Israel from the face of the earth,” Israel proceeds with a similar strategy without openly declaring it regarding Palestinians. In so doing, Israel is losing moral authority for its behavior and supporters for its cause. The enlightenment that came to Gen. Ariel Sharon came too late or his death came too soon. In any event, his legacy was too short lived.

As long as Israel continues the insane game of “shooting fish in a barrel” that it apparently enjoys playing with the lives of Palestinians, the feud will continue. Moreover, such senseless escalation has spillover effects. Clearly, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and West bank are no match for the Israeli military machine armed with nuclear weapons, advanced weaponry and telemetry and US backing. As a result, the predictable response of Palestinian supporters is to target any Israeli anywhere in the world. That is the only way to counteract the imbalance of military power, terrorism. So the Israeli actions are actually breeding terrorism throughout the world, a fact that should concern all of us.

The more likely truth is that violence will subside only when a way to address the daily oppression and continuous threat of extinction that Israel is visiting upon Palestinians. There will certainly still be vengeful feelings on both sides. That cannot be helped, given the history of the blood feud. And neither side can completely control individual acts of revenge and terrorism. The policies of terrorism and oppression can, however, be undone and abandoned. Healing can only begin when the basic underlying causes of the hatred are removed and the fuel to the fire is abated. The insane notion that “might makes right” has been proven false throughout the ages and is equally true in this case. Unless Israel is prepared to completely adopt its own “final solution” and exterminate all Palestinians and their supporters, and bear the consequences of such a strategy, this course of disproportionate retaliation must stop. They can kill 100 so-called “security forces” in the Gaza Strip, but killing one innocent child undoes all benefit of the attack. Therein lies the insanity of war and escalation.

[See a subsequent article posted 12/30/2008 at http://www.truthout.org/123008A]

Bush’s Crowning Success

Perhaps the greatest success of the Bush Administration, of the president himself, relating to Iraq has come in the past week or so when Bush just missed getting “crowned” with a shoe thrown by a protesting reporter. The actions of Muntathar al Zaidi, an Iraqi television reporter, during a press conference in which Bush attempted to extol the successes of his Administration in Iraq symbolized the frustration of Most Iraqis. Al Zaidi shouted his protest on behalf of all the innocent civilians, women and children who have died or been made homeless as a result of Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Since that press conference, al Zaidi has been held in prison and not allowed to see his family. His representatives have formally filed a petition to allow his family to visit him and to protest his beating at the hands of security forces following his detention. Bush claims to regard the actions as evidence of the success of his Administration in bringing democracy and freedom of expression to Iraq. But Bush has made no effort to support the release of al Zaidi, an action that would lend some credence to the rhetoric he so readily spouts.

There have been daily protests in the streets of many cities in Iraq demanding that al Zaidi be released from prison. Parliament has taken up the issue and other important business of the country has been sidetracked until this issue is resolved. The actions of the reporter must be dealt with in a fair and just manner. Civil disobedience includes the acceptance of reasonable consequences for such defiance. But the context of the action, and the severity of the damage caused by the action, must also be considered. All that really happened was that the Iraqi authorities were embarrassed because one protester dared to speak out loud what the majority of Iraqis feel and believe. Consider the following quotes:

Munthatar's younger brother, Maythem, 28, said the family would take part in the protests until the court allows them access to him. "I affirm that his was a heroic act, and we as a family are proud of him. He was able to unite all of Iraq, all its Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen and Christians."

"Because of Muntathar, I lift my head high. And to be frank, I haven't been proud to be an Iraqi for five long years of humiliation," said Sheikh Mohammed al Inizi, a leader in the Sons of Iraq movement, which brought Sunni tribes together with American forces to fight terrorist cells. "We should call him Muntathar al Iraqi - not Muntathar al Zaidi; all of Iraq is his tribe now," Inizi said.

If George W. Bush were more concerned about his legacy and wished to truly help heal Iraq, he would take the bold and courageous step of publicly asking Maliki to pardon al Zaidi. It would show true character and magnanimity that Bush has to date failed to demonstrate. True, there was a public display of aggression against a foreign head of state. But the potential threat was hardly lethal. If Bush could summon the courage to accept the dissent symbolized by al Zaidi’s actions, he would go a long way toward changing the picture that is likely to remain his legacy, that of ineptitude, arrogance, and lack of character.

The Plague of Fear

A significant problem with historians and social studies teachers is that we keep drawing parallels. Mankind is remarkably more prone to making the same mistake twice [or sometimes more often] than coming up with a solution that is truly novel. The trial and error process seems to be the preferred method of learning, instead of creative reflection and innovation. Today the world faces an economic crisis not seen for almost seven decades, i.e. the lifespan of most people alive today. There are many causes for the economic decline; it derives from a constellation of economic forces and deliberate venality and corruption. Looking to the future is an imperative if the world is to retain hope for a recovery from the devastating consequences of such wayward behaviors. Looking to the past may provide some ideas for corrective measures or at least provider advice regarding mistakes to avoid repeating.

During the Dark Ages, the Bubonic Plague or “Black Death” swept across the Mediterranean Sea areas and ultimately killed nearly half the population of the Byzantine Empire and Europe. The terrible disease unapologetically laid waste to one of the more advanced civilizations the world had seen. Beyond the horror of the disease itself, the Plague had far reaching social and political consequences. The fear of interacting with other people amplified the impact of the debilitating physical damage to society. Simply put, people learned to live with a low level mass hysteria and paranoia that inhibited social interaction.

Obviously, when communication and interaction with other people slows on a mass scale, the commerce dependent upon such interactions also slows and economic activity in general declines. History tells us that the greatest advances in science, technology and the arts have occurred in societies that fostered open communication and social interaction. The open exchange of information and ideas has generated the Pax Romana, the Golden Age of Islam, the Glory of Timbuktu, the European Renaissance and subsequent creative surges. In contrast, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Third Reich, the Joseph McCarthy “Red Scare” campaign and other eras that emphasized distrust, sanctioned persecution and that fed upon social isolation and alienation have been steps backward.

What then can such history lessons teach us about the current status of civilization? Which model have we been trending toward, and what has the effect of that trend brought us? While not nearly as severe as the examples cited, it is reasonable to suggest that the general blanket of fear and alienation that has covered the globe is taking society in the direction of isolationism and distrust resembling the repressive regimes. The resulting impact would not likely to be salutary and current troubles may not be entirely coincidental.

The attack on the World Trade Center was a tragic event that shook the consciousness of the world and caused profound changes in the world outlook many US citizens held. Yet for all its destructive force, it was only an incident. It was not something that could have been characterized as a sustained invasion or revolutionary rebellion. The attack was a criminal and cowardly terrorist act, but it was the reaction to that attack that has shaped the global psychological war we find ourselves in today. The Bush opportunistic decision to concoct a conspiracy of Iraqi involvement to justify an illegitimate war of choice for purposes of regime change turned an isolated criminal act into a global “war on terror.” There have been other terrorist attacks that have not yielded such expansive and attenuated reactions.

With the call for and mass marketing of the “war on terror” the character of society in the United States has changed dramatically. Like the sense of fear and distrust that arose from the Black Death, each one of us and each of our neighbors have been infected with a sense of suspicion and distrust. Every person is presumed “suspect” unless and until he or she can prove that no terrorist or terrorist sympathizer beliefs are harbored. People that we would heretofore have felt no serious impulse to fear are now initially suspect. We might even cast suspicion on people that we thought we knew. We are constantly bombarded by messages that advise us not to accept anything from a “stranger” and to keep watch for any “suspicious activities” by anyone we encounter.

Immediate and obvious effects such as the extensive delays in transportation and subsequent restriction of free travel are caused by “security procedures” intended to ferret out potential terrorists within our midst. The presumptive mindset is that there must be a terrorist lurking somewhere close by. This collective mindset can have an incremental and cumulative impact that is not obvious when we focus on individual interactions. Much like individual cars entering a major freeway, the specific event is not seemingly significant, yet the cumulative effect can stall traffic and immobilize a city.

Similarly, the cautionary messages we hear constantly along with sensationalistic headlines about events of actual and “suspected” terrorism tend to inhibit free speech and communication in an aggregate way. Less travel because of the inconveniences of security procedures and latent fear of interaction with “strangers” in an environment that we now consider “unsafe” can retard the exchange of communication and ideas. We constantly hear warnings in airports and train stations that even joking about the issue of security or criticism of “security” procedures can lead to arrest. This indoctrination can have a dampening effect upon open communication and free speech. When free speech, exchange of ideas and the ability to express critical thought are suppressed, the potential for creative advances is reduced.

This “plague of fear” is an insidious problem that has been injected into the psyche of society. The cure for the condition is more complex and troublesome than the initiation of the malady. How does one effectively tell people to stop being afraid? Pandora’s Box, once opened, is not easily reclosed and the evils unleashed cannot be put back into the box. Even the message to stop being afraid, when combined with the suspicious attitude fostered by the climate of fear, is likely to be viewed with suspicion and distrust. Are they just trying to lull us into a false sense of complacency? Or there might be a lack of confidence in the security officials and agencies. After all, if the World Trade Center attack was an intelligence and law enforcement failure, why believe that these same officials are now more competent?

Yet if the direction of society is to be turned round, a way must be found to change this negativistic “groupthink” that has been cultivated. Some catalyst of hope and confidence in the basic positive traits of humanity has to be found and unleashed to counter the isolationism and distrust. Unfortunately, the fear and the related threat are not entirely psychological, thought the psychological component is the major debilitating factor. By demonizing certain groups unfairly as a result of stereotyping, enemies have been created that may well not have existed in the past. Persons who may have felt antipathy toward the US government and possibly its citizens, but only in the sense of disposition, may have been driven to action by insults, outrages and persecution generated by the Bush declaration of a crusade against “terror” which has morphed into a code for Islam. There is a psychological truism that treating a person as an enemy can provoke the person to behave like an enemy in response.

So the resolution will have to combine methods of dispelling fear and a cessation of unjustified provocation that tends to create the forces we fear. We need to abandon groundless fears, and stop creating the enemies that provide grounds for legitimate fear. It took considerable time for the general public to let go of the cycle of fear connected with the Cold War. The current cancerous Plague of Fear will be more difficult to eliminate. Given the deleterious effects of this conditioned thinking on society and the economy, the greatest thing we really have to fear is NOT finding a solution to the problem.

Don’t just do something, Stand there!

In some cases, the urge to “just do something” in the midst of a crisis can be overwhelming; but sometimes the urge should be resisted. This advice is cogent in the present environment where each day brings a more urgent doomsday alert. The financial industry is on the verge of collapse, we must give them unrestricted access to $700 Billion! The auto industry is on the verge of a meltdown, we must give them additional loans of $35 Billion. The health care system is at risk, we must invest at least $10 Billion taxpayer dollars to increase payments to health insurers! In each case, the plea for infusion of tax dollars is plausible and nearly hysterical. Eager to curry favor with both constituents and lobbyists, members of Congress have been lining up to dole out resources from the already strained public treasury in order to show that they are “responsive” in a crisis.

In certain circumstances, it is better to step back and read the situation more broadly before reacting to the “Chicken Little” cries for salvation. Weeks and months after the dire warnings of collapse of the financial industry, the industry remains in place with the shakeout of a few particularly poor performers. Some would argue that the normal operation of the market should eliminate the weaker performers. In any event, the “bailout” seems to have resulted in three things that were not among the objectives of the legislative kneejerk reaction.

The first was evidence of large bonuses and lavish “retreats” for industry executives. This “feel good” gesture for the same executive who ran the industry to near collapse seems, at best, a little odd and poorly timed. The second was the use of bailout funds by certain recipient financial enterprises to purchase their weakened competitors. This amounts to a federally subsidized “turkey shoot” in which taxpayer dollars were used to help banks favored by the Bush Administration capitalize on the crisis and eliminate competition from other banks who perhaps had not been as generous in their campaign contributions to the GOP of late. The third interesting result is that credit is still virtually frozen and the banks are hoarding the taxpayer funds. In other words, taxpayer funds were used to make the banks healthier so that they would open credit to aid consumers and businesses. The money was actually used to make the banks healthier, but the public benefit of the expenditure seems to have gotten stalled somewhere.

So the reluctance of some in Congress to rush bailout funding for the auto industry is perhaps fortuitous. Don’t think for a moment that the objectors are doing so completely out of logic and a sudden fealty to their obligation of public stewardship. Reasons for opposition include a desire to see the US Big Three auto manufacturers in bankruptcy in order to advantage Japanese auto companies like Toyota and Honda that have plants in the legislator’s district. More cynical politicians want to prevent a bailout that appears to be Democratic Party driven, and by blocking Congressional action they can force the Bush Administration to use other bailout funds to help the automakers, a GOP driven solution. The result, however, is the same. The delay in a rush for bailout has allowed time to debate whether and under what conditions such public involvement should proceed. The delay and debate should be seen as beneficial. There needs to be a discussion of the “conditions” that should be placed on any public investment to prevent the same sort of fraud that has accompanied the finance industry bailout.

Ultimately, there should be some form of aid to the auto industry. Such aid should be strictly limited and highly conditioned to assure not only that the industry survives the current crisis, but also that there is a substantial and lasting change in the direction and management of the companies. However, the idea of handing over billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to prop up failed and intransigent management would be foolish. If considered with a calm and logical disposition, the requisite intervention would be viewed as similar to a conservatorship. In such cases, management who had run the enterprise into the ground would be dismissed and executives with experience in turning businesses around would be brought in. The proposals currently being floated would leave current management in place and require the reduction of wages and benefits of the auto workers.

Some adjustment of labor costs seems logical in light of the differential between Big Three costs and those of the Japanese automakers. However, it is also possible that a large part of the economic difficulties faced by the US automakers, i.e. drop in sales, could be due to the production of the wrong types of vehicles. That would point to failure of management strategy at least as much as labor costs as contributing factors. Any sound strategy for rescue of the auto industry would require a carefully considered and thorough examination of the restructuring needed to turn the companies. This rationale supports, in theory at least, legislators suggesting that a combination of Bankruptcy reorganization with guaranteed public loan support for a renovated would be more prudent. The idea and argument that consumers would refuse to buy vehicles, if priced properly, from a company that is being reorganized to function more competitively seems doubtful. It is so doubtful that one wonders why additional “independent” of consumer opinion have not been conducted.

Exhaust Fumes [Smoke] & Mirrors

The CEO’s of the US automaker companies have announced plans to return to Capitol Hill to again plead their case for a federal handout to save the ailing manufacturing enterprises. This time, the parade will not arrive in separate corporate jets. Instead the executives plan to arrive by car, supposedly as a public relations move to counter the terrible press they received because of the mode of transportation chosen previously. At the risk of creating an impossible choice – damned if you do, damned if you don’t – the current decision highlights the cluelessness of the executives and their marketing strategists. No one is expecting busy executives [and they ought to be VERY busy] to wear a hair shirt and self flagellate in order to justify aid. The time required to travel by car could be seen as a wasteful publicity stunt unless the cars are equipped with communications devices that make the executives available during the travel. Why not simply take a commercial airline flight from Detroit [an airline hub] that would require far less time and be more efficient? Millions of business travelers get to and from meetings each week via air travel. Many no longer indulge in first class travel at the expense of their company or client, but they get where they need to go and back within a day.

The answer is probably that it never occurred to these folks. And therein lies the problem. They lack the ability to make simple common sense decisions that are fiscally sound and grounded in the real world. Similar critique could be applied to the expected bailout plans. Ford plans on requesting a huge “stand by” line of credit that it now says that it does not expect to need to tap. Why request it if it is unnecessary? Is the request being made because the company does not want to look like it is not a “team player” when its peers are kneeling at the public trough? “We don’t need the aid, but since GM & Chrysler are there begging, what the hell…why shouldn’t we get some free money too?” GM states that it will need from $ Billion to $12 Billion to survive. The demand is based upon plans for changes that it will make in the future, including the conversion to more eco-friendly and fuel efficient cars. Kick me if I haven’t heard that one before! The problem with such promises or deals – give me money now and we’ll make changes later – is that once the company gets past the immediate crisis, a thousand excuses arise for not making the changes.

The truth, I believe, is that the companies actually need some measure of aid in order to get past the immediate economic downturn. Vehicle sales have plummeted because people don’t have the money or credit to buy them AND because the vehicles needed are not being produced. A bailout plan based upon keeping Cadillac and Buick lines, the luxury vehicles of the fleet, does not sound like the executives have gotten religion or even thought the matter through.

This is PUBLIC charity we are talking about, not a public offering. And while the request for aid is justified by need to pay money for the shift of worker pension trusts, it is clearly expected that the companies will seek to delay such payments. So the pattern of dishonesty and deception, as well as doubtful executive competence, remains a problem.

The watchword should be caution. If money is sought, but not immediately needed, the government should maintain control and release funds only upon satisfactory certification of actual use. Putting discretionary funds in the hands of the same executives that have run the companies into multi-billion dollar debt seems senseless. Any promises made regarding future plans should be written explicitly into any legislation authorizing any bailout relief. The proposal for executives and management to take pay cuts is unpersuasive. These same executives have been drawing multi-million dollar compensation while the companies were diving into almost unbelievable debt. The question is not whether they should work for “one dollar” as the CEO’s propose. The real question is why they should keep their jobs at all, if the public is to risk billions of taxpayer dollars. Enough games, enough smoke and mirrors. The US government should do exactly what is truly necessary to help the automakers through the painful crisis. But the pain must be shared.

Thumb Twiddling in the Oval Office

The economists know it. The failed financial institutions and mortgage lenders know it. The hundreds of thousands of US citizens who have lost their jobs know it. The businesses who cannot get cash flow lines of credit to support continued operation know it. The multitude of merchants wringing their hands over the flat or declining levels of sales during what is supposed to be the highest selling period during the year know it. The Nation’s economy is IN RECESSION.The National Bureau of Economic Research officially declared that the US economy entered recession in December 2007.

Yet despite the multitude of facts and the multitude of dollars already committed to try to rescue the economy from total collapse, the Bush Administration cannot even acknowledge the truth. In a carefully worded and plainly disingenuous press statement, the White House noted that the NBER determines the beginning and end of business cycles and avoided even mentioning the word “RECESSION.”

Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Bush Administration has been so slow and so ineffectual in responding to the economic crisis? The President apparently still does not believe that the crisis is real. It is axiomatic that an alcoholic cannot begin the road to recovery until he or she first admits to the existence of a problem. Perhaps the pain or fear of acknowledging how badly his administration has failed by removing regulations and then ignoring clear warning signals regarding the practices arising from such deregulation is too much. Never one to face facts or listen to sage advice, Bush once again seeks refuge in denial.

News flash to President Bush: The weakness comes not in publicly admitting you were wrong and have failed. The actual weakness lies in the incompetence and stubborn adherence to ideology over reality that created the failure in the first place. Acceptance of the failure is simply the first step in the process of correcting the mistakes and trying to restore the damage caused by your incompetence. If you cannot grasp this principle, then perhaps an old military cliché will suffice. LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!

Unfortunately, there is no Constitutional provision that allows for the sitting President to vacate office early. The current inhabitant of the White house has not only failed the country in leadership and stewardship, he is paralyzed by the magnitude of his failure and unable to act with any expertise or conviction to move the remedial process forward. The President-Elect cannot take the reins of power and exercise effective leadership while Bush is still technically in office. Thus, the country will have to limp along for another month and one half until the inauguration before it can hope for leadership and serious efforts to rectify the disaster left by the Bush Administration.

For all the bluster of a President who strapped on his cowboy boots and claimed that he was the “decider” and protector of national security, the US is now more weakened and more vulnerable than it has been in more than seven decades. And George W. Bush is still denying reality in hopes of salvaging his “legacy.” How utterly laughable, how tragic.