The job of carrying forward thoughtful analysis of the legislative and policy changes wrought by the G.W. Bush Administration and his accomplice, the GOP controlled Congress is not a glamorous one. Liken it to the job of a housing inspector roving about in dank basements in hostile weather to examine the foundations of a building. Based upon his findings, which may seem far from obvious to the average eye, he must persuade the present or prospective owners that the serious cracks in the foundation are likely to cause the building to crumble. Moreover, he may have to sound the alarm that repairs are immediately necessary to preserve the structure.
Such admonitions are brushed aside by Bush Administration supporters and GOP stalwarts as “political” sniping. While some criticisms obviously do have political motivations, others are simply the objective assessments of the "effects" resulting from "causes" put in motion by Congress and the President. In some cases, the public has been so distracted by the “spin” and “sound bite” media approach to policy used in politics today, that they fail to recognize the real world consequences that policies adopted have. The public is distracted by cynically advanced graphic images of potential “mushroom clouds” rising from nuclear weapons that Iran does not yet have, and Iraq was never close to obtaining. This demagoguery and fear mongering distracts attention from real world erosion of civil rights that are at the core of our democracy.
The Military Commissions Act pushed through last fall by the GOP Congress contained a provision that allowed detainees like those in Guantanamo Bay to have their cases considered by military commissions. That same Act stripped the US courts of their ability to hear cases by the detainees regarding the legality of their detention. A divided panel of the Federal Court in DC just issued a ruling, based upon a 2-1 majority opinion by two GOP appointed judges, that the MCA provision is valid and applies. Unless the ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court [now containing Bush appointees Alito and Chief Justice Roberts], the Bush Administration can do whatever it likes to non-citizens as long as they are off shore. And the top lawyer for the administration has written an opinion that the Geneva Conventions do not even apply.
Keep in mind that the law now provides that the only recourse a detainee who has been labeled an “enemy combatant” [correctly or not] now has is to a military panel answerable only to the Executive Branch authority that made the decision to imprison the detainee in the first place. The primary motivations of such a panel would be to affirm the decision on detention, and to avoid embarrassment to the chain of command and the Administration. The rights of the detainee would fall far below these top priorities. There is no recourse to an independent judiciary whose duty is to uphold the US Constitution, our laws and our system of justice.
This serious crack in the foundation of our system of justice has not gone without notice:
A spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was accelerating efforts to pass a revision to the law that would restore detainees' legal rights, noting that some 12 million lawful permanent residents currently in the U.S. could also be stripped of rights. The new provision, introduced by Leahy and then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., narrowly failed last year on a 48-51 vote.
"The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness," Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement. [Associated Press – Feb 20, 2007]
The damage that has been done to our democracy and to our system of justice, the very foundation upon which this country was built, lies not only in the blatant public gestures like pre-emptive war and assaults on the environment. There is very serious damage done by insidious measures that undercut and erode the principles we have relied upon for centuries. The right of Habeas Corpus, after all, was a primary spark for the rebellion against King George IV of England. We have a social compact among Americans that imprisonment can only be for good cause, and that the government must be able to show probable cause if it wishes to continue to hold someone for a suspected crime.
According to the DC Circuit Court, that is no longer a bedrock principle of our country. A permanent resident can be erroneously labeled as an enemy combatant, based upon mistaken or deliberately falsified information, and be held in prison in Guantanamo Bay, or one of the extraordinary rendition secret prisons under US control around the world, for an indefinite period. There is not even a right to challenge the detention on the basis of mistaken identity in a court of law. It may be America, but it certainly does not sound like the “Land of Liberty” of which we teach our children to sing. And unless we take steps promptly to repair the damage, the entire structure is at risk of collapsing.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Burn, Baby Burn!
Caveat Emptor! Beware! Hot Topic!
--- Anyone who is allergic or has a strong aversion to reality and factual evidence should stop now and read no further. Bush Administration officials and apologists for the Administration Environmental and Energy policies should proceed with extreme caution.
The scientific evidence continues to mount in support of the increasing momentum of the earth toward the ecological tipping point resulting from global warming. The recent consensus report of the entire scientific community has taken us past the point of argument whether global warming is in progress and that the activities of humans on the planet is significantly contributing to the deterioration of environmental balance. The topics of serious discussion [apologies to the nattering nabobs of the George W. Bush Anti-science Society] has turned to questions of how quickly the deterioration is progressing and what steps can be taken to slow down or reverse the trend. Recent scientific reports of Earth temperature measurements do not provide much comfort or cause for celebration.
According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., the world’s land areas were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January. That increase broke the old record set in 2002 by 0.81 degrees, which meteorologists said is a lot. Land temperature records often are broken by only hundredths of a degree at a time. The scientists issuing the report went beyond their normal double-checking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models “just to make sure that what we’re seeing was real,” Data Center Official Easterling said.
The temperature of the world’s land and water combined — the most effective measurement of global temperature for comparative purposes — was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal. This increase broke the old record by more than one-quarter of a degree. Ocean temperatures alone didn’t set a record.
These developments are of concern because they represent dramatic departures from the expected rate of change based upon older and traditional models. Some scientists have expressed concern that the global warming phenomenon is more like a stone rolling down a hill than a gradual linear process. As change occurs, these changes stimulate other changes exponentially or at least logarithmically as the process picks up momentum. One such discovery was the hydraulic collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica. Rather than the expected erosion of the ice from the edges of the sea, water melting on the surface of the shelf drills down to bedrock and creates a layer of water that allows large chunks of the ice shelf to slide off into the sea. This process results in a much quicker loss of ice mass than was previously predicted.
The cumulative effect of many such “anomalies” could be creating the global increase in temperature that has yielded four of the highest annual temperatures ever recorded [measurements began in the 1880’s] in the past five years. One does not need to be an environmental scientist [with rocket design competence] to recognize that this information points to a dangerous trend. While it may not be clear what all the alternatives and corrective measures are, it seems quite obvious that sitting around denying that the problem exists is not an intelligent strategy. More than likely, as with most environmental and energy related issues, the response will have to be comprised of a combination of measures adopted on a global basis. After all, that is how the problem was created.
American leadership seems intent upon allowing the situation to continue to degrade until the planet becomes a living hell. While we may politely invite them to go to that address, we can act more rationally. No individual effort will resolve the coming crisis, it will take a true grass roots effort. We can start to combine our efforts and modify our behaviors to keep from making the situation worse.
--- Anyone who is allergic or has a strong aversion to reality and factual evidence should stop now and read no further. Bush Administration officials and apologists for the Administration Environmental and Energy policies should proceed with extreme caution.
The scientific evidence continues to mount in support of the increasing momentum of the earth toward the ecological tipping point resulting from global warming. The recent consensus report of the entire scientific community has taken us past the point of argument whether global warming is in progress and that the activities of humans on the planet is significantly contributing to the deterioration of environmental balance. The topics of serious discussion [apologies to the nattering nabobs of the George W. Bush Anti-science Society] has turned to questions of how quickly the deterioration is progressing and what steps can be taken to slow down or reverse the trend. Recent scientific reports of Earth temperature measurements do not provide much comfort or cause for celebration.
According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., the world’s land areas were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January. That increase broke the old record set in 2002 by 0.81 degrees, which meteorologists said is a lot. Land temperature records often are broken by only hundredths of a degree at a time. The scientists issuing the report went beyond their normal double-checking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models “just to make sure that what we’re seeing was real,” Data Center Official Easterling said.
The temperature of the world’s land and water combined — the most effective measurement of global temperature for comparative purposes — was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal. This increase broke the old record by more than one-quarter of a degree. Ocean temperatures alone didn’t set a record.
These developments are of concern because they represent dramatic departures from the expected rate of change based upon older and traditional models. Some scientists have expressed concern that the global warming phenomenon is more like a stone rolling down a hill than a gradual linear process. As change occurs, these changes stimulate other changes exponentially or at least logarithmically as the process picks up momentum. One such discovery was the hydraulic collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica. Rather than the expected erosion of the ice from the edges of the sea, water melting on the surface of the shelf drills down to bedrock and creates a layer of water that allows large chunks of the ice shelf to slide off into the sea. This process results in a much quicker loss of ice mass than was previously predicted.
The cumulative effect of many such “anomalies” could be creating the global increase in temperature that has yielded four of the highest annual temperatures ever recorded [measurements began in the 1880’s] in the past five years. One does not need to be an environmental scientist [with rocket design competence] to recognize that this information points to a dangerous trend. While it may not be clear what all the alternatives and corrective measures are, it seems quite obvious that sitting around denying that the problem exists is not an intelligent strategy. More than likely, as with most environmental and energy related issues, the response will have to be comprised of a combination of measures adopted on a global basis. After all, that is how the problem was created.
American leadership seems intent upon allowing the situation to continue to degrade until the planet becomes a living hell. While we may politely invite them to go to that address, we can act more rationally. No individual effort will resolve the coming crisis, it will take a true grass roots effort. We can start to combine our efforts and modify our behaviors to keep from making the situation worse.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
The Further Costs of Fear
The omnipresence of fear in the United States continues to take a toll on the psyche of the American people. Each day we are reminded of 9/11 and that we are at some indefinable, unquantifiable and inexplicable level of risk that another terrorist attack will occur. This message has been so effectively broadcast and pounded into the consciousness of Americans that even the corner drug store owner in Ottumwa, Iowa lives in fear of an imminent attack unless the Department of Homeland Security is vigilant. At every airport in the nation, we are reminded that the DHS [ an acronym which some of us recall used to represent the Department of Health and Human Services…how times have changed!] has declared a state of orange alert.” There are apparently four levels, with the risk of attack increasing in each step: green, yellow, orange and red. One might question the precision, if not the competence of a system that has had a constant orange alert in every city for more than two years. After all, it would be hard to imagine that New York City and Fargo, ND, have the same risk of attack. But in these times, it may even be against the law to disparage the national security apparatus. So by way of disclaimer, I am SURE that the DHS is doing the best job they know how to do to protect the American people.
But the system of fear has other costs. The head of the Central Bank in Argentina stated in a speech this week that more than 200 corresponding Latin American banks have switched their cash transactions to Europe because of the extensive regulations imposed by the Bush Administration to trace possible transactions relating to persons or organizations which could lead to potential support of terrorists. These restrictions and trade barriers have made the increased cost of doing business with US banks unattractive. This is another example of how the climate of paranoia or fear (depending upon whether one has blind faith in the Administration’s claims of terrorist threats in the US), has unseen costs to the American economy and makes the US less competitive in the global marketplace. The United States is becoming an increasingly less attractive destination for tourists. This may be a result of a combination of the climate of fear and the generalized decline of respect and admiration of this country around the world. In any event, it represents an economic loss. Common sense would dictate that an analysis of the need and effectiveness of all these security measures and barriers to economic activity.
In the current climate, we are fed generalized exhortations daily to beware of “terrorists.” We are reminded that we are at "war with terror." We are told that any laxity in our vigilance or failure to fight the terrorists would be devastating. We are never advised of any specific threats or of any actual terrorist plots or cells in the US that the DHS has effectively disrupted. We are not given any specific information that would support the notion that the entire nation needs to be constantly on Orange Alert. The excuse, of course, is that revealing such information would endanger national security. The logic of how the release of information about an actual success story of intervention that occurred six months ago or more would undermine national security is obscure, at best. In fact, knowledge that all these constraints are actually accomplishing something concrete would conceivably build confidence and tolerance in the public.
However, we are given nothing concrete to hold onto. Nothing, that is, except fear. And we are repeatedly told that our greatest fear should be not being afraid.
But the system of fear has other costs. The head of the Central Bank in Argentina stated in a speech this week that more than 200 corresponding Latin American banks have switched their cash transactions to Europe because of the extensive regulations imposed by the Bush Administration to trace possible transactions relating to persons or organizations which could lead to potential support of terrorists. These restrictions and trade barriers have made the increased cost of doing business with US banks unattractive. This is another example of how the climate of paranoia or fear (depending upon whether one has blind faith in the Administration’s claims of terrorist threats in the US), has unseen costs to the American economy and makes the US less competitive in the global marketplace. The United States is becoming an increasingly less attractive destination for tourists. This may be a result of a combination of the climate of fear and the generalized decline of respect and admiration of this country around the world. In any event, it represents an economic loss. Common sense would dictate that an analysis of the need and effectiveness of all these security measures and barriers to economic activity.
In the current climate, we are fed generalized exhortations daily to beware of “terrorists.” We are reminded that we are at "war with terror." We are told that any laxity in our vigilance or failure to fight the terrorists would be devastating. We are never advised of any specific threats or of any actual terrorist plots or cells in the US that the DHS has effectively disrupted. We are not given any specific information that would support the notion that the entire nation needs to be constantly on Orange Alert. The excuse, of course, is that revealing such information would endanger national security. The logic of how the release of information about an actual success story of intervention that occurred six months ago or more would undermine national security is obscure, at best. In fact, knowledge that all these constraints are actually accomplishing something concrete would conceivably build confidence and tolerance in the public.
However, we are given nothing concrete to hold onto. Nothing, that is, except fear. And we are repeatedly told that our greatest fear should be not being afraid.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Read 'Em And Weep
In the game of Poker, it is not necessarily the hand that has the greatest value that controls the table a player with a worthless position may control the bidding through arrogance and bluffing. Disaster can result when that player’s bluff is called and his hand is shown to lack merit. While timid Senators and Representatives in Congress speculate and haggle over rather insignificant semantics in wording a symbolic resolution of disapproval of the Bush Admiinistration troop buildup in Iraq, the White House is busy planning another catastrophe, a pre-emptive attack on Iran.
The leadership of the Bush Administration taken the country into the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which the country is now deeply mired. The stakes have been raised to one half Trillion dollars, more than 3000 US soldier deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed. Not satisfied with one major fiasco, the President and Vice President are now determined to risk what would likely be a regional, if not global, war with nuclear ramifications. Common sense and a prudent sense of survival would require of our Congress to take forceful and deliberate action to curb the mad excesses of the Bush Administration. The squabbling over the Iraq resolution wording is, in context, silly and trivial.
A responsible Congress would acknowledge the documented fact that Congress was misled in authorizing the invasion, and would also make a formal finding that the purported justifications for the authorization to use military force do not exist. Thus, Congress could rescind the authority and require Bush to seek new authority to continue the occupation, based upon the situation that actually exists. At the same time, a responsible Congress should attach riders to the current budget that prohibit use of funds for any pre-emptive military strike without express approval from Congress. But we do not seem to have a responsible Congress. And in the current game of “Texas Hold-em” all the public can do is “read them and weep.” Consider carefully the following article published today in the United Kingdom newspaper:
US Able To Strike in The Spring
By Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK
Saturday 10 February 2007
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr. Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr. Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr. Bush had not yet made a decision…….
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
The leadership of the Bush Administration taken the country into the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which the country is now deeply mired. The stakes have been raised to one half Trillion dollars, more than 3000 US soldier deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed. Not satisfied with one major fiasco, the President and Vice President are now determined to risk what would likely be a regional, if not global, war with nuclear ramifications. Common sense and a prudent sense of survival would require of our Congress to take forceful and deliberate action to curb the mad excesses of the Bush Administration. The squabbling over the Iraq resolution wording is, in context, silly and trivial.
A responsible Congress would acknowledge the documented fact that Congress was misled in authorizing the invasion, and would also make a formal finding that the purported justifications for the authorization to use military force do not exist. Thus, Congress could rescind the authority and require Bush to seek new authority to continue the occupation, based upon the situation that actually exists. At the same time, a responsible Congress should attach riders to the current budget that prohibit use of funds for any pre-emptive military strike without express approval from Congress. But we do not seem to have a responsible Congress. And in the current game of “Texas Hold-em” all the public can do is “read them and weep.” Consider carefully the following article published today in the United Kingdom newspaper:
US Able To Strike in The Spring
By Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK
Saturday 10 February 2007
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr. Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr. Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr. Bush had not yet made a decision…….
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."
But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."
He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Let Freedom Cringe
Aboard a Concord Trailways bus this morning from Manchester, New Hampshire, to Boston, we were delayed while two men boarded and announced that they were immigration agents checking to determine whether passengers had the appropriate papers for travel. These men were not dressed in any official uniform and wore no badges or insignia confirming any actual authority. [I later learned from the Bus driver that one of the men had discretely shown him a badge out of the view of the passengers.] As the two men walked down the aisle, they spoke to a couple of passengers who identified themselves as non-citizens who are legal residents. In both instances, the passengers did not have their actual green cards on their person. These passengers were chided that it is against the law to travel in the US as a permanent legal resident without carrying your official documents on your person. I do not doubt, in these days and times, that they accurately stated the law. I confess that I was not aware of that particular constraint, even with 30 years of legal training and experience.
In over 50 years of traveling about the country, I have never before been aboard a public transportation vehicle that was detained by immigration agents for inspection of papers. These agents did not request the papers of every passenger. Each passenger was required to furnish a picture ID in order to purchase a ticket. It was clear, however, that the agents were not referring to any list or manifest as they conducted their inspection. The agents then departed and the bus departed from the station.
The experience left me with two very different impressions. The first and most immediate impression was a sense of how a non-US citizen, who is legally entitled to be in the US and to travel, must feel these days when traveling in this country. I recognized that the experience might be discomfiting to a visitor on a travel visa, despite the fact that such shows of authority have never seemed necessary prior to the World Trade Center attack. But it had not previously occurred to me that individuals who have a permanent resident status or are naturalized are now subject to the same interdiction. The feeling was one of palpable tension, and all conversation on the bus stopped and remained completely quiet until the men left the bus. There was some discussion afterward about why they inspected the bus and why they did not check the identification of every passenger.
The second impression was that I have traveled about the world, including recent trips to Venezuela, Mexico and Fiji, and not been stopped and asked for my identification papers. In travels to these countries, there was never a scarcity of police or official presence in public places. And I have in fact approached such police for assistance in locating a place or finding something I needed. Not one of these encounters felt intimidating or made me feel unwelcome. Of course, a passport has been requested when checking into a hotel and to support a credit card purchase.
I have never been stopped and questioned about my freedom to travel, even in these countries that have been portrayed by the US government and the US mainstream media as somewhat dangerous or subversive. Fiji and México have had tumultuous changes of government, and the enmity between George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez is now legendary. Yet in none of these countries was I ever made to feel that the governments did not want me to be in their country, or that they were worried about my presence there.
In fact, my only other truly negative experience also occurred in the United States. Returning on a flight from Jamaica with my ex wife [who is Caucasian] and children, I was detained by US Customs agents who apparently thought that I [who am Black and Native American] might be trying to get into the country illegally. I had shown the agents a valid passport, even though only a driver’s license or birth certificate had typically been required at the time. I believe that experience was motivated by rather blatant racial discrimination more than the “national security” concerns that currently seem to underlie these shows of authority today. [We could also discuss the potential ethnic and religious discrimination behind these "national security"policies in another piece.]
The topping on this delicacy of a travel experience was a conversation overheard while passing through the security checkpoint at the airport. The agents were talking among themselves in a normal and matter of fact tone, as employees typically do to pass the time when there is no rush of passengers. One agent, obviously new to the job, stated to another that he was glad that the security job with TSA had come through. He said that he had tried and could not get a job at McDonalds. While I do not frequent McDonalds, primarily because of health and nutritional concerns, I would not disparage the employees who work in those fast food establishments. However, it was more than a little disconcerting to hear that the rigorous standards applied to the officials in whose hands the protection of our "national security" has been placed is below the hiring standards for a fast food restaurant that requires no training or experience.
This is still supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but when I think of how our freedom is being trampled and treated with such carelessness and disregard, I cannot help but cringe a little.
In over 50 years of traveling about the country, I have never before been aboard a public transportation vehicle that was detained by immigration agents for inspection of papers. These agents did not request the papers of every passenger. Each passenger was required to furnish a picture ID in order to purchase a ticket. It was clear, however, that the agents were not referring to any list or manifest as they conducted their inspection. The agents then departed and the bus departed from the station.
The experience left me with two very different impressions. The first and most immediate impression was a sense of how a non-US citizen, who is legally entitled to be in the US and to travel, must feel these days when traveling in this country. I recognized that the experience might be discomfiting to a visitor on a travel visa, despite the fact that such shows of authority have never seemed necessary prior to the World Trade Center attack. But it had not previously occurred to me that individuals who have a permanent resident status or are naturalized are now subject to the same interdiction. The feeling was one of palpable tension, and all conversation on the bus stopped and remained completely quiet until the men left the bus. There was some discussion afterward about why they inspected the bus and why they did not check the identification of every passenger.
The second impression was that I have traveled about the world, including recent trips to Venezuela, Mexico and Fiji, and not been stopped and asked for my identification papers. In travels to these countries, there was never a scarcity of police or official presence in public places. And I have in fact approached such police for assistance in locating a place or finding something I needed. Not one of these encounters felt intimidating or made me feel unwelcome. Of course, a passport has been requested when checking into a hotel and to support a credit card purchase.
I have never been stopped and questioned about my freedom to travel, even in these countries that have been portrayed by the US government and the US mainstream media as somewhat dangerous or subversive. Fiji and México have had tumultuous changes of government, and the enmity between George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez is now legendary. Yet in none of these countries was I ever made to feel that the governments did not want me to be in their country, or that they were worried about my presence there.
In fact, my only other truly negative experience also occurred in the United States. Returning on a flight from Jamaica with my ex wife [who is Caucasian] and children, I was detained by US Customs agents who apparently thought that I [who am Black and Native American] might be trying to get into the country illegally. I had shown the agents a valid passport, even though only a driver’s license or birth certificate had typically been required at the time. I believe that experience was motivated by rather blatant racial discrimination more than the “national security” concerns that currently seem to underlie these shows of authority today. [We could also discuss the potential ethnic and religious discrimination behind these "national security"policies in another piece.]
The topping on this delicacy of a travel experience was a conversation overheard while passing through the security checkpoint at the airport. The agents were talking among themselves in a normal and matter of fact tone, as employees typically do to pass the time when there is no rush of passengers. One agent, obviously new to the job, stated to another that he was glad that the security job with TSA had come through. He said that he had tried and could not get a job at McDonalds. While I do not frequent McDonalds, primarily because of health and nutritional concerns, I would not disparage the employees who work in those fast food establishments. However, it was more than a little disconcerting to hear that the rigorous standards applied to the officials in whose hands the protection of our "national security" has been placed is below the hiring standards for a fast food restaurant that requires no training or experience.
This is still supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but when I think of how our freedom is being trampled and treated with such carelessness and disregard, I cannot help but cringe a little.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Attack of the "Lite Brites"
The opportunity to comment upon the recent panic and over reaction of the Boston officials to the guerilla advertising campaign stunt is too much to pass up. Small devices that resembled enlarged "Lite Brite" [a children's toy] pictures of a character on a Cartoon Network program caused hours of dislocation and near panic when Boston officials declared a terrorist alert, apparently believing that the devices were potential bombs. Similar devices have up in public places for up to three weeks in ten different cities, but Boston was the only one where serious reaction was registered. In other cities, the marketing devices were viewed as perhaps juvenile, but not dangerous. Closer examination of the devices readily revealed that they were not bombs and posed no threat to public safety. The danger that did result was from the official reaction.
Therein lies the issue that should concern us. It would be too easy to ridicule the Boston police for their "chicken little" response to an innocuous piece of marketing junk. The real concern is the level of public paranoia that has been cultivated and fostered over a supposed threat of a terrorist attack. We are in the midst of a culture of fearmongering in which we are constantly reminded to fear and distrust everyone in public and to worry about a terrorist attack wherever we go. In such an atmosphere, it is not surprising that the Boston police would overreact.
Most of us recall the argument between the Sheriff and the town Mayor in the movie "Jaws" over whether to alert the public to the threat of a shark attack. The same debate was portrayed more recently in the movie "Deep Impact." where a comet threatened the earth. The issue is the responsibility of officials to investigate and try to eliminate a potential threat to public safety before sounding a public alert that may cause widespread panic and injury. It seems, however, that the public has been in a state of "orange" or "red" alert for the past four years. It is long past time to examine whether this is a healthy situation that should continue.
The public was not whipped into the current level of hysteria in a "post Oklahoma City" world. But now the Department of Homeland Security justifies curtailing civil liberties and the constant fearmongering about a terrorist attack with the excuse that we now live in a "post 9/11" world. There have been terrorist attacks around the world, both before and after the attack on the World Trade Center. They have ranged from politically motivated bombings to schoolyard massacres. And yet all this investment in "Homeland Security" has not made us demonstrably any safer than before 9/11. Indeed, experts in the field have opined that the Iraq occupation and "war on terror" have actually made us less safe. By effectively declaring open war on an ethnic group [Arabs] and a religion [Islam], the Bush Administration has baited extremists. The destabilization of Iraq has increased the ability of terrorist groups to hide out in Iraq.
The sad reality is that the fearmongering is a political tool being cynically used to maintain leverage on the issue of "national security." There is, in fact, no appreciably greater threat to the United States now than before the 9/11 attack. By positing an amorphous "enemy" of "terrorism," which is a tactic and not a definable target, the Bush Administration has created an omnipresent "Boogieman" to put us all in fear. Worst of all, this deception has been supported by outright lies. We are told that to fight this "terror" that is embodied by Al Qaeda, we must invade and occupy Iraq. The facts we now know, are that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and that Al Qaeda was not functioning in or sponsored by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
America needs to wake up. There are threats of crime and violence, and they will continue to exist. Improved technology and police agency cooperation using traditionally developed and constitutionally sanctioned methods have and will continue to help maintain public security without destroying the foundations of a free and democratic society. Through these means we can respond rationally and effectively to real threats. But if we continue in dazed hysteria and induced fear regarding imagined threats, the result will not only be the trampling of our civil rights, but the literal and physical trampling of citizens in a public panic attack. The Boston experience should be a wake up call.
Therein lies the issue that should concern us. It would be too easy to ridicule the Boston police for their "chicken little" response to an innocuous piece of marketing junk. The real concern is the level of public paranoia that has been cultivated and fostered over a supposed threat of a terrorist attack. We are in the midst of a culture of fearmongering in which we are constantly reminded to fear and distrust everyone in public and to worry about a terrorist attack wherever we go. In such an atmosphere, it is not surprising that the Boston police would overreact.
Most of us recall the argument between the Sheriff and the town Mayor in the movie "Jaws" over whether to alert the public to the threat of a shark attack. The same debate was portrayed more recently in the movie "Deep Impact." where a comet threatened the earth. The issue is the responsibility of officials to investigate and try to eliminate a potential threat to public safety before sounding a public alert that may cause widespread panic and injury. It seems, however, that the public has been in a state of "orange" or "red" alert for the past four years. It is long past time to examine whether this is a healthy situation that should continue.
The public was not whipped into the current level of hysteria in a "post Oklahoma City" world. But now the Department of Homeland Security justifies curtailing civil liberties and the constant fearmongering about a terrorist attack with the excuse that we now live in a "post 9/11" world. There have been terrorist attacks around the world, both before and after the attack on the World Trade Center. They have ranged from politically motivated bombings to schoolyard massacres. And yet all this investment in "Homeland Security" has not made us demonstrably any safer than before 9/11. Indeed, experts in the field have opined that the Iraq occupation and "war on terror" have actually made us less safe. By effectively declaring open war on an ethnic group [Arabs] and a religion [Islam], the Bush Administration has baited extremists. The destabilization of Iraq has increased the ability of terrorist groups to hide out in Iraq.
The sad reality is that the fearmongering is a political tool being cynically used to maintain leverage on the issue of "national security." There is, in fact, no appreciably greater threat to the United States now than before the 9/11 attack. By positing an amorphous "enemy" of "terrorism," which is a tactic and not a definable target, the Bush Administration has created an omnipresent "Boogieman" to put us all in fear. Worst of all, this deception has been supported by outright lies. We are told that to fight this "terror" that is embodied by Al Qaeda, we must invade and occupy Iraq. The facts we now know, are that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and that Al Qaeda was not functioning in or sponsored by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
America needs to wake up. There are threats of crime and violence, and they will continue to exist. Improved technology and police agency cooperation using traditionally developed and constitutionally sanctioned methods have and will continue to help maintain public security without destroying the foundations of a free and democratic society. Through these means we can respond rationally and effectively to real threats. But if we continue in dazed hysteria and induced fear regarding imagined threats, the result will not only be the trampling of our civil rights, but the literal and physical trampling of citizens in a public panic attack. The Boston experience should be a wake up call.
“Bold” Rhetoric about Iraq
We have been hearing that a proposed Senate resolution opposing the White House plan to deploy thousands more troops in Iraq will “embolden the enemy.” To most sentient beings, this rhetoric is empty sloganeering and base demagoguery. To those willing to base opinion on facts, the argument is irrational and silly. After all, General John Abizaid testified last November before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had surveyed all Generals and all the field commanders agreed that the proposed “surge” of additional troops in Baghdad was not the answer to the current sectarian violence. So if there was any message that would give heart to the “enemy,” it would be the decision of the President to go forward with a strategy that his field commanders believe is futile. In all fairness and logic, would you give greater respect and deference to the strategic battlefield judgment of career soldiers with decades of experience and direct responsibility and experience in theater, or to a president who has never experienced real active duty military service or directed a successful military campaign?
And what does “embolden the enemy” really mean? The “enemy” needs to be defined in this situation. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stated publicly in December his opposition to a US troop build up. Is the Iraqi Prime Minister, upon whom Bush rests major responsibility for success of this plan, the “enemy?” Shiite and Sunni leaders in the Iraqi government want the US troops out of Iraq. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are less vocal, but they too have indicated that the solution to the current crisis must be an internal one, rather than something imposed by a foreign power. Are the Iraqi people from all religious and ethnic sectors the “enemy” Bush does not want to embolden? Reasonably reliable reports from Iraq suggest primary Al Qaeda activity in the Anbar Province, rather than Baghdad where the troop “surge” is to be focused. So Al Qaeda would not be emboldened by opposition to the “surge” plan. In fact, Al Qaeda would probably want the US to divert and deplete resources in areas where they are not active. Al Qaeda would be more emboldened by going forward with the Bush plan, and not by opposition to it. Bush seems to have no clear idea who the “enemy” is, much less why or how that “enemy” would be emboldened by opposition to the troop increase.
White House rhetoric branding anyone dissenting from the Bush Administration strategy as unpatriotic and disloyal to American troopsis reprehensible and undemocratic. Moreover, the claim of "emboldening the enemy" makes no practical sense. Our soldiers in Iraq already have gotten the message that the “Decider” directing this mission is largely incompetent, and that there is no realistic hope for a military solution. Reports from the field [see reports in Army Times and other military periodicals] suggest that troop morale is low because of a belief that those directing the US mission [i.e the Bush Administration] have lost touch with reality and have no clear idea of what US troops are supposed to accomplish. In addition, many who are in Iraq, and those who have served there, believe that the “Iraqi Freedom Mission” has been so poorly managed that it is now beyond retrieval. Refusals of career military personnel to deploy in a war that they believe is illegal, immoral and futile, and the public court martial prosecution of these individuals demonstrate the deep level of disconnect between the white House and the troops. Iraq war veterans state publicly that they believe sending more troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war is more demoralizing to troops than any debate in the Congress.
To advance a modest suggestion, the problem is not with a symbolic Senate resolution opposing the troop surge. That measure will have virtually no impact upon a President who is more concerned about doing “his” thing than about doing the “right” thing. Appeals to logic and common sense have been futile. A "resolution" warning him not to go forward will only strengthen his resolve to do as he pleases, like an oppositional child. The problem lies in the continued failure of Congress to act responsibly within their constitutional powers and duty to curtail the authority and discretion of a President who is steering this country on a disastrous course.
When the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, it was deplorable but understandable why Congress did nothing to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration. But the public declared very loudly in the November mid-term election that it wanted to change that dynamic. So far, the new Congress seems so defensive and caught up in diversionary White House rhetoric that they have ignored the reasons why they were elected. The additional lives unnecessarily lost and the money that will be wasted by the Bush Administration, until Congress acts to change the course this country is on, will be the real tragedy. What the country needs, and what will truly dishearten the genuine enemies of this nation is true leadership that will stand up to Bush and assert a rational strategy that can unify rather than divide the people of this country and stop squandering the resources, respect and good will of America. Sadly, quibbling over the semantics of a symbolic resolution does not constitute such leadership.
And what does “embolden the enemy” really mean? The “enemy” needs to be defined in this situation. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stated publicly in December his opposition to a US troop build up. Is the Iraqi Prime Minister, upon whom Bush rests major responsibility for success of this plan, the “enemy?” Shiite and Sunni leaders in the Iraqi government want the US troops out of Iraq. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are less vocal, but they too have indicated that the solution to the current crisis must be an internal one, rather than something imposed by a foreign power. Are the Iraqi people from all religious and ethnic sectors the “enemy” Bush does not want to embolden? Reasonably reliable reports from Iraq suggest primary Al Qaeda activity in the Anbar Province, rather than Baghdad where the troop “surge” is to be focused. So Al Qaeda would not be emboldened by opposition to the “surge” plan. In fact, Al Qaeda would probably want the US to divert and deplete resources in areas where they are not active. Al Qaeda would be more emboldened by going forward with the Bush plan, and not by opposition to it. Bush seems to have no clear idea who the “enemy” is, much less why or how that “enemy” would be emboldened by opposition to the troop increase.
White House rhetoric branding anyone dissenting from the Bush Administration strategy as unpatriotic and disloyal to American troopsis reprehensible and undemocratic. Moreover, the claim of "emboldening the enemy" makes no practical sense. Our soldiers in Iraq already have gotten the message that the “Decider” directing this mission is largely incompetent, and that there is no realistic hope for a military solution. Reports from the field [see reports in Army Times and other military periodicals] suggest that troop morale is low because of a belief that those directing the US mission [i.e the Bush Administration] have lost touch with reality and have no clear idea of what US troops are supposed to accomplish. In addition, many who are in Iraq, and those who have served there, believe that the “Iraqi Freedom Mission” has been so poorly managed that it is now beyond retrieval. Refusals of career military personnel to deploy in a war that they believe is illegal, immoral and futile, and the public court martial prosecution of these individuals demonstrate the deep level of disconnect between the white House and the troops. Iraq war veterans state publicly that they believe sending more troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war is more demoralizing to troops than any debate in the Congress.
To advance a modest suggestion, the problem is not with a symbolic Senate resolution opposing the troop surge. That measure will have virtually no impact upon a President who is more concerned about doing “his” thing than about doing the “right” thing. Appeals to logic and common sense have been futile. A "resolution" warning him not to go forward will only strengthen his resolve to do as he pleases, like an oppositional child. The problem lies in the continued failure of Congress to act responsibly within their constitutional powers and duty to curtail the authority and discretion of a President who is steering this country on a disastrous course.
When the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, it was deplorable but understandable why Congress did nothing to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration. But the public declared very loudly in the November mid-term election that it wanted to change that dynamic. So far, the new Congress seems so defensive and caught up in diversionary White House rhetoric that they have ignored the reasons why they were elected. The additional lives unnecessarily lost and the money that will be wasted by the Bush Administration, until Congress acts to change the course this country is on, will be the real tragedy. What the country needs, and what will truly dishearten the genuine enemies of this nation is true leadership that will stand up to Bush and assert a rational strategy that can unify rather than divide the people of this country and stop squandering the resources, respect and good will of America. Sadly, quibbling over the semantics of a symbolic resolution does not constitute such leadership.
Friday, February 02, 2007
The Way Forward? – Take a Step Backward
“A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.” By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus;
The official word is in; the situation in Iraq is in dire straits. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, we may hope the report will put an end to the absurd commentary by Vice President Cheney painting a rosy picture of the conflict and the bright prospects of “winning.” There will be no effective progress toward a solution to the tragic situation in Iraq until the Administration and Congress are able to step back and obtain a realistic perspective of the actual situation in Iraq. This is made substantially more difficult by circumstances that foster disinformation. The previous attacks, including assaults by US forces, upon reporters operating as embedded and independentjournalists has drastically choked the flow of information regarding the situation on the ground. Moreover, the Bush Administration treatment and censorship of embedded journalists has discouraged such reporting efforts and undermined public confidence in such reports as well. Indeed, the more reliable reports about the Iraqi situation now come from foreign journalists and reporters for Arab and independent news organizations operating in the Mid East Region.
Another important piece of information in the National Intelligence Estimate is the identification of the primary risks and obstacles to improvement of the situation. "Corruption"is one central factor. ” This factor has many dimensions, but the impact is largely the same. It undermines the confidence that can rationally be placed in any proposal put forward by an Administration that has both fostered corruption and failed to take any reasonable steps to stop corrupt activity. In the minds of the public, this raises the notion that the Administration is corrupt and cannot be trusted.
The numerous reports of corruption and mismanagement respecting funds allotted for support and reconstruction in Iraq support a belief that the Bush Administration is either totally incompetent in its mission to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, or that it is complicit in the corrupt diversion of billions of dollars. Why then, should Congress approve billions more for such purpose without greater assurance regarding how the money will be spent?
The recent reports about complete failure of training initiatives to function as local police forces also indicate that the Bush Administration is inept in its mission to create stabilizing conditions in Iraq. Reports of large training facilities built but never used, along with Olympic swimming pools and other luxuries not clearly tied to the purpose of the mission. The participants in the training have taken the pay, weapons and training and then deserted in very large numbers. Many of these deserters are believed to operate in local sectarian militia forces.
The wisdom of placing confidence, as the Bush Administration does, on the Iraqi government and Maliki is certainly questionable. By all appearances, the Maliki government has been walking a tightrope that maintaining support of the Shiite factions that oppose US involvement and concessions to the Sunnis on one side, and maintaining personal protection and substantial personal wealth as a result of maintaining a role as Bush’s agent in Iraq. Maliki makes some critical statements toward Washington to create an appearance of independence for his sectarian Shiite supporters and contradictory statements about his intent to crack down on local Shiite militias to end the sectarian violence. Would the Iraqi government act in the manner that it does if the Green Zone protection or US backed creature comforts were not provided?
The "way forward" needs the perspective of stepping back to carefully and realistically assessing the current situation. That perspective would compel a different and more practical approach to the problem. More than likely, a regionally negotiated political solution, rather than a militarily imposed solution would become the primary objective. Allocated funds would be directed to efforts that actually yield results and those awarded contracts would be responsible for completion of contract work and subject to reasonable accounting procedures.
It is true that, despite being led into Iraq by deception and unlawful conduct by the White House, the US is now present in the middle of a disastrous conflict. The practical problem is how to achieve the best possible outcome while extricating US troops from the country. That process cannot happen as long as Bush maintains an unrealistic “full speed ahead” and “damn the torpedoes” approach to the situation in Iraq.
The official word is in; the situation in Iraq is in dire straits. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, we may hope the report will put an end to the absurd commentary by Vice President Cheney painting a rosy picture of the conflict and the bright prospects of “winning.” There will be no effective progress toward a solution to the tragic situation in Iraq until the Administration and Congress are able to step back and obtain a realistic perspective of the actual situation in Iraq. This is made substantially more difficult by circumstances that foster disinformation. The previous attacks, including assaults by US forces, upon reporters operating as embedded and independentjournalists has drastically choked the flow of information regarding the situation on the ground. Moreover, the Bush Administration treatment and censorship of embedded journalists has discouraged such reporting efforts and undermined public confidence in such reports as well. Indeed, the more reliable reports about the Iraqi situation now come from foreign journalists and reporters for Arab and independent news organizations operating in the Mid East Region.
Another important piece of information in the National Intelligence Estimate is the identification of the primary risks and obstacles to improvement of the situation. "Corruption"is one central factor. ” This factor has many dimensions, but the impact is largely the same. It undermines the confidence that can rationally be placed in any proposal put forward by an Administration that has both fostered corruption and failed to take any reasonable steps to stop corrupt activity. In the minds of the public, this raises the notion that the Administration is corrupt and cannot be trusted.
The numerous reports of corruption and mismanagement respecting funds allotted for support and reconstruction in Iraq support a belief that the Bush Administration is either totally incompetent in its mission to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, or that it is complicit in the corrupt diversion of billions of dollars. Why then, should Congress approve billions more for such purpose without greater assurance regarding how the money will be spent?
The recent reports about complete failure of training initiatives to function as local police forces also indicate that the Bush Administration is inept in its mission to create stabilizing conditions in Iraq. Reports of large training facilities built but never used, along with Olympic swimming pools and other luxuries not clearly tied to the purpose of the mission. The participants in the training have taken the pay, weapons and training and then deserted in very large numbers. Many of these deserters are believed to operate in local sectarian militia forces.
The wisdom of placing confidence, as the Bush Administration does, on the Iraqi government and Maliki is certainly questionable. By all appearances, the Maliki government has been walking a tightrope that maintaining support of the Shiite factions that oppose US involvement and concessions to the Sunnis on one side, and maintaining personal protection and substantial personal wealth as a result of maintaining a role as Bush’s agent in Iraq. Maliki makes some critical statements toward Washington to create an appearance of independence for his sectarian Shiite supporters and contradictory statements about his intent to crack down on local Shiite militias to end the sectarian violence. Would the Iraqi government act in the manner that it does if the Green Zone protection or US backed creature comforts were not provided?
The "way forward" needs the perspective of stepping back to carefully and realistically assessing the current situation. That perspective would compel a different and more practical approach to the problem. More than likely, a regionally negotiated political solution, rather than a militarily imposed solution would become the primary objective. Allocated funds would be directed to efforts that actually yield results and those awarded contracts would be responsible for completion of contract work and subject to reasonable accounting procedures.
It is true that, despite being led into Iraq by deception and unlawful conduct by the White House, the US is now present in the middle of a disastrous conflict. The practical problem is how to achieve the best possible outcome while extricating US troops from the country. That process cannot happen as long as Bush maintains an unrealistic “full speed ahead” and “damn the torpedoes” approach to the situation in Iraq.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Spooky Things - Losses in The War on Terror
The current controversy in Europe, specifically in Italy and now in Germany, regarding the proper response to alleged crimes of kidnapping, unlawful detention and torture of citizens of those countries provides and interesting look into the state of democratic values. The actions of these governments give us a glimpse of how the rest of the world, that previously viewed the United States, as a bastion of freedom, justice and the rule of law, are now all but compelled to view America
In the Italian case, Abu Omar was snatched off the streets by CIA operatives with the support and complicity of Italian intelligence operatives. He was removed from Italy in an operation now commonly referred to as “extraordinary rendition.” The Italian Court system is seeking extradition of US operatives involved in the incident. It would appear that abduction of an Italian citizen by foreign agents, without resort to the Italian judicial or legal system, is beyond the standards that the Italian government and society accept as within the boundaries of a democratic society that respects the rule of law.
Similarly, The German government is now considering formal charges against 13 CIA operatives involved in the abduction of Khaled Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent. Masri was kidnapped, jailed and allegedly tortured during five months of captivity. He too was released without charges or any confirmed justification for his abduction and detention. There have been legislative inquiries into the level of knowledge and complicity by high level German officials in the rendition. Nevertheless, the abduction of a German citizen by US operatives without formal resort to the German judicial or legal system is viewed an illegal and potentially criminal.
The dilemma facing these governments, and by extension their societies, is whether the power and influence of the US government can override the basic civil rights and principles of justice that these countries have guaranteed to their citizens. The clandestine complicity of German or Italian operatives could be a complicating factor. However, a distinction can be clearly seen between the German government’s treatment of its own citizens, and the treatment of German citizens the German or Italian government should permit other governments to exercise. The White House is undoubtedly surprised that these governments would have the temerity to challenge the actions of CIA who were allegedly pursuing the “War on Terror.” The Bush Administration had openly declared that it did not consider its agents subject to international law or treaty restrictions.
The governments of Italy and Germany have squarely addressed the basic question whether the “end justifies the means” in combating a perceived threat of terrorist violence. Their legal systems are asking whether a society is willing to sacrifice its fundamental principles for expediency in addressing a problem that may threaten great harm to its people. Is it acceptable to destroy a society’s system of justice in order to protect that society? In these cases, the question does not arise in the face of an actual or imminent threat of assault, attack or invasion by an identifiable enemy, but rather in the face of an unidentified and speculative “foe” purposely created by hype and public hysteria. To be sure, terrorist attacks on the public have occurred with devastating results. But there is no real evidence that traditional police and investigatory methods that fall within accepted principles of existing legal systems are incapable of addressing such threats. Most of the successful raids and interdictions of alleged terrorist plots have been conducted by traditional police agencies, who are now working with greater coordination in light of a heightened sense of threat. But these actions have been conducted within the confines of established legal standards. So the question is whether these governments should allow their citizens to be abducted without warning or any semblance of due process in order to support the Bush “War on Terror.” Or is it possible that the cure is worse than the disease?
To answer these questions, the Italian and German governments can no longer look to the United States for guidance in resolving these fundamental questions. As the perpetrator of these actions, America no longer has credibility or standing to advise others on the principled application of the rule of law and the assurance of constitutional protections to citizens. And our inability to provide that guidance that has traditionally been a hallmark of our system of government should cause each American to reflect.
In reality, the current crisis is about much more than Iraq. It can fairly be argued that the mission in Iraq was lost when the Bush Administration launched the invasion without a plan for what should be done once the intended regime change was effected. However, the United States has lost far more in the process of pursuing Bush’s Mission” in Iraq and his “War on Terror.” Our moral compass and our role as an exemplar of justice and the rule of law in a democratic society have been sacrificed.
In the Italian case, Abu Omar was snatched off the streets by CIA operatives with the support and complicity of Italian intelligence operatives. He was removed from Italy in an operation now commonly referred to as “extraordinary rendition.” The Italian Court system is seeking extradition of US operatives involved in the incident. It would appear that abduction of an Italian citizen by foreign agents, without resort to the Italian judicial or legal system, is beyond the standards that the Italian government and society accept as within the boundaries of a democratic society that respects the rule of law.
Similarly, The German government is now considering formal charges against 13 CIA operatives involved in the abduction of Khaled Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent. Masri was kidnapped, jailed and allegedly tortured during five months of captivity. He too was released without charges or any confirmed justification for his abduction and detention. There have been legislative inquiries into the level of knowledge and complicity by high level German officials in the rendition. Nevertheless, the abduction of a German citizen by US operatives without formal resort to the German judicial or legal system is viewed an illegal and potentially criminal.
The dilemma facing these governments, and by extension their societies, is whether the power and influence of the US government can override the basic civil rights and principles of justice that these countries have guaranteed to their citizens. The clandestine complicity of German or Italian operatives could be a complicating factor. However, a distinction can be clearly seen between the German government’s treatment of its own citizens, and the treatment of German citizens the German or Italian government should permit other governments to exercise. The White House is undoubtedly surprised that these governments would have the temerity to challenge the actions of CIA who were allegedly pursuing the “War on Terror.” The Bush Administration had openly declared that it did not consider its agents subject to international law or treaty restrictions.
The governments of Italy and Germany have squarely addressed the basic question whether the “end justifies the means” in combating a perceived threat of terrorist violence. Their legal systems are asking whether a society is willing to sacrifice its fundamental principles for expediency in addressing a problem that may threaten great harm to its people. Is it acceptable to destroy a society’s system of justice in order to protect that society? In these cases, the question does not arise in the face of an actual or imminent threat of assault, attack or invasion by an identifiable enemy, but rather in the face of an unidentified and speculative “foe” purposely created by hype and public hysteria. To be sure, terrorist attacks on the public have occurred with devastating results. But there is no real evidence that traditional police and investigatory methods that fall within accepted principles of existing legal systems are incapable of addressing such threats. Most of the successful raids and interdictions of alleged terrorist plots have been conducted by traditional police agencies, who are now working with greater coordination in light of a heightened sense of threat. But these actions have been conducted within the confines of established legal standards. So the question is whether these governments should allow their citizens to be abducted without warning or any semblance of due process in order to support the Bush “War on Terror.” Or is it possible that the cure is worse than the disease?
To answer these questions, the Italian and German governments can no longer look to the United States for guidance in resolving these fundamental questions. As the perpetrator of these actions, America no longer has credibility or standing to advise others on the principled application of the rule of law and the assurance of constitutional protections to citizens. And our inability to provide that guidance that has traditionally been a hallmark of our system of government should cause each American to reflect.
In reality, the current crisis is about much more than Iraq. It can fairly be argued that the mission in Iraq was lost when the Bush Administration launched the invasion without a plan for what should be done once the intended regime change was effected. However, the United States has lost far more in the process of pursuing Bush’s Mission” in Iraq and his “War on Terror.” Our moral compass and our role as an exemplar of justice and the rule of law in a democratic society have been sacrificed.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Thank Heavens For Moms
When the thicket of intertwined Congressional representative allegiances, political favors, lobbying pressures and future political aspirations gets so dense that logic and common sense seem beyond hope, leave it to some Moms to cut through it all and say, “Enough!”
Recently, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters stepped forward to sponsor legislation that would cut funding for the Bush troop escalation in Iraq , now being called a "surge." Their rationale was clear and unassailable.
First, the great majority of military and political experts in a position to speak knowledgeably about the situation in Iraq [Democrats and Republicans] have stated that the “surge” is a mistake, as is deepening US involvement in what is now an Iraqi civil war.
Second, neither the proposed Resolution advanced by several prominent Senators [Biden, Hagel & Levin] or any other “statement” will do anything to stop the young men and women being sent to Iraq from dying. Something concrete must be done to stop or impede Bush’s troop buildup because he clearly will not change course on his own volition.
This is the kind of clear reasoning moms have used for centuries to break up unproductive squabbling among kids so caught up in the argument that they have lost sight of the rest of the world around them. Not one more mother’s child should have to die in Iraq. Sending more US troops into that conflict will only increase the unnecessary suffering and tears of yet more mothers.
Recently, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters stepped forward to sponsor legislation that would cut funding for the Bush troop escalation in Iraq , now being called a "surge." Their rationale was clear and unassailable.
First, the great majority of military and political experts in a position to speak knowledgeably about the situation in Iraq [Democrats and Republicans] have stated that the “surge” is a mistake, as is deepening US involvement in what is now an Iraqi civil war.
Second, neither the proposed Resolution advanced by several prominent Senators [Biden, Hagel & Levin] or any other “statement” will do anything to stop the young men and women being sent to Iraq from dying. Something concrete must be done to stop or impede Bush’s troop buildup because he clearly will not change course on his own volition.
This is the kind of clear reasoning moms have used for centuries to break up unproductive squabbling among kids so caught up in the argument that they have lost sight of the rest of the world around them. Not one more mother’s child should have to die in Iraq. Sending more US troops into that conflict will only increase the unnecessary suffering and tears of yet more mothers.
Ooopps, I Did It Again!
No, this is not a career comeback for Brittany Spears. Instead, the comment reflects the clumsiness and lack of tact or competence on the part of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. This is the man appointed by President Bush and confirmed by a GOP controlled Senate to be the top legal officer of the United States. He is a co-author of a legal memorandum advising the President that torture of prisoners and detainees of the US government was legal in some circumstances, and that the Geneva Convention was obsolete. The memo was intended as “advice of counsel” upon which Bush Administration officials could rely if prosecuted as war criminals. What was he thinking?
Now consider his most recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testimony that confounded even ranking GOP Senator Arlen Specter (who supported his confirmation):
Gonzalez: "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away,"
Specter: "Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"
Gonzalez: "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. "
Specter: "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."
This apparent new “gloss” on the Constitution is advanced by the Bush Administration instead of the Supreme Court which is usually charged with such fundamental tasks. In an expansion of this imperial Presidency, the testimony of Gonzalez would suggest that American citizens are not entitled to the right and privilege of habeas corpus that we had thought the Constitution guaranteed us for over 200 years. It seems that Gonzalez believes that while Congress is not allowed to take away the right of habeas corpus from anyone who has the right. The Executive branch gets to decide, in the absence of a specific act of Congress granting the right to certain individuals, whether you or I have the right. Aside from the acknowledgement of inalienable rights of citizenship in the Preamble, the Sixth Amendment spells out pretty clearly that the right to speedy trial, to know the charges asserted, to confront accusers and to compel testimony of witnesses. Anyone completing a high school civics class would appear better informed than the top legal officer of the nation.
While the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights may be turning over in their graves, there is little that they can do at this point to save Americans from the dangers every American may face from its own government, the Justice Department. We don’t know if Gonzalez truly failed to grasp what he was saying and its implications, a question of mental acuity. Given the chance in friendly questioning to correct himself, and failing to do so, we might assume that Gonzalez both understood and believes what he said. That would represent arrogance and a disregard for centuries of legal precedent. Could we realistically expect such a legal mind to view any action by the White House as unlawful?
At the same time comes a report that up to seven Attorneys General have been fired and replaced with political operatives closely aligned with Karl Rove and the Bush Administration. Those relieved of duty include Carol Lam in San Diego who successfully prosecuted Former Congressman Cunningham for fraud, corruption and malfeasance in office. No longer shielded from oversight by a GOP controlled Congress, the Bush Administration is taking steps to assure that illegal and corrupt actions will not be prosecuted. The accidental choice of an independent minded prosecutor in the Scooter Libby case taught Karl Rove and Bush a lesson. They don't intend to make the same mistake twice.
Now consider his most recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, testimony that confounded even ranking GOP Senator Arlen Specter (who supported his confirmation):
Gonzalez: "There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there's a prohibition against taking it away,"
Specter: "Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's a rebellion or invasion?"
Gonzalez: "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion. "
Specter: "You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."
This apparent new “gloss” on the Constitution is advanced by the Bush Administration instead of the Supreme Court which is usually charged with such fundamental tasks. In an expansion of this imperial Presidency, the testimony of Gonzalez would suggest that American citizens are not entitled to the right and privilege of habeas corpus that we had thought the Constitution guaranteed us for over 200 years. It seems that Gonzalez believes that while Congress is not allowed to take away the right of habeas corpus from anyone who has the right. The Executive branch gets to decide, in the absence of a specific act of Congress granting the right to certain individuals, whether you or I have the right. Aside from the acknowledgement of inalienable rights of citizenship in the Preamble, the Sixth Amendment spells out pretty clearly that the right to speedy trial, to know the charges asserted, to confront accusers and to compel testimony of witnesses. Anyone completing a high school civics class would appear better informed than the top legal officer of the nation.
While the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights may be turning over in their graves, there is little that they can do at this point to save Americans from the dangers every American may face from its own government, the Justice Department. We don’t know if Gonzalez truly failed to grasp what he was saying and its implications, a question of mental acuity. Given the chance in friendly questioning to correct himself, and failing to do so, we might assume that Gonzalez both understood and believes what he said. That would represent arrogance and a disregard for centuries of legal precedent. Could we realistically expect such a legal mind to view any action by the White House as unlawful?
At the same time comes a report that up to seven Attorneys General have been fired and replaced with political operatives closely aligned with Karl Rove and the Bush Administration. Those relieved of duty include Carol Lam in San Diego who successfully prosecuted Former Congressman Cunningham for fraud, corruption and malfeasance in office. No longer shielded from oversight by a GOP controlled Congress, the Bush Administration is taking steps to assure that illegal and corrupt actions will not be prosecuted. The accidental choice of an independent minded prosecutor in the Scooter Libby case taught Karl Rove and Bush a lesson. They don't intend to make the same mistake twice.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Capitol Hill Tea Party
The world of politics is indeed a strange one. It would seem that logic holds no sway when it comes to taking positions against the opposition. Take for example the latest blast from GOP legislators and the White House against the passage of a Democratic sponsored Bill to cut interest rates on some federally subsidized student loans. The GOP criticized the measure for “not doing enough” and for not also “providing additional funding for grants to students.”
To be sure, the Democratic legislation to aid students is imperfect and does not even purport to correct fully the plight of students whose dream of a college education now seems more elusive as their economic circumstances deteriorate and the cost of higher education rises constantly. Cynics also point out that some colleges may raise tuition costs and defeat the intended beneficial impact of the legislation. But the measure is at least an effort and a step in the right direction.
What defies logic is the nature of the GOP criticism. During absolute control of the Congress and the White House for six years, the GOP failed to take any of the steps that they now complain that the Democratic measure lacks. Intent upon raiding the treasury to grant tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans and bankrupting future revenues with the tab for the Bush war in Iraq, GOP Congressional leaders failed to take any steps to assist students obtain their dreams of a college education. Now they complain that the Democrats are not doing enough.
The Mad Hatter presses Alice, insisting that she take “more tea.” Alice protests that she cannot have more tea since she has not yet had any tea. And so the mad party continued. We will no doubt hear more of this type of nonsensical repartee in the Congress as the year progresses.
To be sure, the Democratic legislation to aid students is imperfect and does not even purport to correct fully the plight of students whose dream of a college education now seems more elusive as their economic circumstances deteriorate and the cost of higher education rises constantly. Cynics also point out that some colleges may raise tuition costs and defeat the intended beneficial impact of the legislation. But the measure is at least an effort and a step in the right direction.
What defies logic is the nature of the GOP criticism. During absolute control of the Congress and the White House for six years, the GOP failed to take any of the steps that they now complain that the Democratic measure lacks. Intent upon raiding the treasury to grant tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans and bankrupting future revenues with the tab for the Bush war in Iraq, GOP Congressional leaders failed to take any steps to assist students obtain their dreams of a college education. Now they complain that the Democrats are not doing enough.
The Mad Hatter presses Alice, insisting that she take “more tea.” Alice protests that she cannot have more tea since she has not yet had any tea. And so the mad party continued. We will no doubt hear more of this type of nonsensical repartee in the Congress as the year progresses.
Guest Article - Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
Friends-
I came across this well written and researched article by clinical psychology experts and felt it was important enough to share with you. I am including the article in its entirety for you. It is not a polemic dressed in technical jargon. It is a careful analysis of observed and objective evidence to which accepted psychological and psychiatrict principles have been applied. I hope it provides food for thought. P
___________________________
Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
By John P. Briggs, MD, and J.P. Briggs II, PhD
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributors
Thursday 18 January 2007
President George W. Bush prides himself on "making tough decisions." But many are sensing something seriously troubling, even psychologically unbalanced, about the president as a decision-maker. They are right.
Because of a psychological dynamic swirling around deeply hidden feelings of inadequacy, the president has been driven to make increasingly incompetent and risky decisions. This dynamic makes the psychological stakes for him now unimaginably high. The words "success" and "failure" have seized his rhetoric like metaphors for his psyche's survival.
The president's swirling dynamic lies "hidden in plain sight" in his personal history. From the time he was a boy until his religious awakening in his early 40s, Bush had every reason to feel he was a failure. His continued, almost obsessive, attempts through the years to emulate his father, obtain his approval, and escape from his influence are extensively recorded.
His biography is peppered with remarks and behavior that allude to this inner struggle. In an exuberant moment during his second campaign for Texas governor, Bush told a reporter, "It's hard to believe, but ... I don't have time to worry about being George Bush's son. Maybe it's a result of being confident. I'm not sure how the psychoanalysts will analyze it, but I'm not worried about it. I'm really not. I'm a free guy."
A psychoanalyst would note that he is revealing here that he has been worrying about being his father's son quite a lot.
Resentment naturally contaminated Bush's efforts to prove himself to his father and receive his father's approval. The contradictory mix showed up in his compulsion to re-fight his father's war against Iraq, but this time winning the duel some thought his father failed to win with Saddam. He could at once emulate his father, show his contempt for him, and redeem him. But beneath this son-father struggle lies a far more significant issue for Bush - a question about his own competence, adequacy and autonomy as a human being.
We have seen this inner question surface repeatedly, and we have largely conspired with him to deny it:
· On September 11, 2001, we saw (and suppressed) the image of him sitting stunned for seven minutes in a crowd of school children after learning that the second plane had hit the Twin Towers, and then the lack of image of him when he vanished from public view for the rest of the day. Instead, we bought the cover-up image, three days after the attack, of the strong leader, grabbing the bullhorn in New York City and issuing bellicose statements.
· In 2004, we saw and denied the insecurity displayed when the president refused to face the 9/11 Commission alone and needed Vice President Cheney to go with him.
· In 2003, we saw and suppressed the dark side of the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing, in which a man who had ducked out on his generation's war and dribbled away his service in the Texas Air National Guard dressed up like Top Gun and pretended that he was a combat pilot like his father.
· Asked by a reporter if he would accept responsibility for any mistakes, Bush answered, "I hope I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not quick - as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." What we heard, and yet didn't hear, was a confession of his feelings of inadequacy and an arrogant denial those feelings all at once.
· In early 2006, when his father moved behind the scenes to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the son responded, "I'm the decider and I decide what's best" - and when he clenched his fist at a question about his father's influence, proclaiming, "I'm the Commander in Chief" - we glimpsed what was going on.
To cover up and defend himself against his feelings of his inadequacy and incompetence, Bush developed a number of psychological defenses. In his school years he played the clown. (His ability to joke about his verbal slip-ups is an endearing adult application of this defense to public life.) His heavy drinking was a classic way to anesthetize feelings of inadequacy. Indeed, drinking typically makes the alcoholic grandiose, which has led some commentators to argue that Bush has the "dry drunk" syndrome, where the individual has stopped drinking but retains the brittle psychology of the alcoholic. Other defenses now play especially powerful roles to protect the president against his internal feelings of insufficiency.
The Christian Defense
Bush has carefully let it be known that he believes the decisions he makes in office are directed by God. His famous claim to make decisions by "gut" ("I'm a gut player," he told Bob Woodward) equates with his claim of the spiritual inspiration he receives through prayer, his own and the prayers of others. Whatever else it is, this equation of his own choices with God's will has unparalleled advantages. It creates the perfect defense against any doubts he or anyone else might have that he can't make the right decision. The need to engage in analysis and explore alternatives to get there comes off the table. Instead, he has his gut; he has his God.
Being "born again" also allows the president to present himself as having relegated to the past all those previously inadequate behaviors of his younger days: the poor academic performance, the drinking, the failed businesses. He's a new man, no longer incompetent but now supremely competent as a result of his faith.
When Woodward asked Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." How wonderfully that appeal must seem to resolve the internal conflict about adequacy we have described above.
The Bully Defense
Bush's mother, Barbara (sarcastic, mean, disciplinarian, always with an acid-tongued retort), is probably the model for another major defense Bush deploys to defend himself against feelings of inadequacy. A friend at the time described her as "sort of the leader bully."
That bullies are insecure people is well known and fairly obvious. A bully covers insecurity with bluster and intimidation so that others won't find an opening to see how weak he feels.
Much of the world outside the US considers Bush a bully. "You're either with us or against us" is a bully's threat that anyone can recognize. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a bully's doctrine.
For his intimates and those closer to home, Bush appears to be what is called an emotional bully. An emotional bully gains control using sarcasm, teasing, mocking, name calling, threatening, ignoring, lying, or angering the other and forcing him to back down. Bush administration insider accounts describe this sort of behavior from the president. He's well known for his dismissive remarks. His penchant for giving nicknames to everyone has its dark, bully's side. Naming people is a way to control them.
In report by Gail Sheehy in 2000, recalled recently by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, we get a glimpse of how Bush's pervasive fear of failure (his absolute refusal to consider "failure as an option") and his bully defense go together. Sheehy interviewed friends from his teenage years and college years. In basketball or tennis games he would insist points be played over because he wasn't ready; he would force opponents who had beaten him to continue playing until he beat them. At Yale he would interrupt his fellow students' studying for exams (helping them fail) to compete in a popular board game, "The Game of Global Domination," at which he was the player noted for taking the most risks, being the most aggressive.
It's likely that speculations about Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice functioning as Bush's puppet-masters are 180 (or at least 160) degrees off. Bush is the president; he gets his way, and they know it. Chances are they have learned to channel his "gut" and give him policy advice that matches it. They may even imagine they are steering him, not clear about the ways that he has bullied them, elicited in them "The Stockholm Syndrome," in which hostages come to identify with and even defend the very person who is threatening them. This is the same dynamic evident in the behavior of battered spouses and members of gangs.
Ron Suskind described the small group around the president: "A disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness - a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners."
Biographical reports tell us that Bush's parents taught him to keep his inner feelings to himself. As psychiatrist Justin A. Frank noted in Bush on the Couch, this results in a "self-protective indifference to the pain of others." This is another aspect of his bully defense, projecting his inner pain onto others. Bush's remarkable drive for the power to torture terrorist suspects and his reported glorying in Texas executions during his terms as governor testify to his lack of compassion, despite his recent statement of qualms about seeing Saddam Hussein drop through the trap.
The Man of Splits and Oppositions
Being in the world, for all of us, involves the challenge to somehow integrate the opposites of our nature and to select our way through the many opposing choices presented us in life. The bully polarizes the natural ambivalence (the internal opposition) anyone feels about whether he is strong or weak, safe or vulnerable. A person who needs to feel invulnerable and completely adequate all the time, or who always feels helpless and inadequate, has polarized these emotions and leads a deformed life. The degree of internal polarization in President Bush appears to be serious - and widespread. Commentators have made lists of the president's polarities: the proclaimed uniter who is a relentless divider, the habit of "saying one thing and doing another," as Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords put it. The list is long and growing. It should include the oppositions that show up in his famous Bushisms, such as:
There is no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world worst leaders to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons.
They [the terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we.
To a psychiatrist, these are not mere malapropisms and mistakes in speech. They suggest ambivalence oscillating violently between poles. They suggest a desperate uncertainty about everything that the president reflexively seeks to hide by taking absolutist, rigid positions about "victory," "success," "mission accomplished," "stay the course," "compassion," "tax cuts," "no child left behind," and a host of other issues.
The Presidential Defense
Once Bush took the bullhorn at ground zero, he found perhaps the ultimate defense for his secret fears of inadequacy. As he told Bob Woodward, in Bush at War, "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." As commander in chief, as a war president, he could assemble his other psychological defenses around him. He could split the world into good and evil and the country would follow. His internal oppositions could be projected without much resistance from the populace or his adversaries. He could be the gut-led, divinely inspired "Decider," to save the country. He could project own internal fears of being "discovered as a fraud" into a threat "out there" waiting to happen. He could surround himself with loyalists whom he could emotionally bully, creating a new family that would admire him and that he could control. Meanwhile the ambiguities of political decisions that can always be rationalized offer a safe haven. Until history judges me (and that's a long way off, maybe never) I can't be definitively seen as incompetent.
But as much as the presidency is a perfect defense for disguising incompetence, it's also the perfect trap. It accelerates the positive feedback loop that was set in motion when he "changed his heart" around age 40 (committing himself to God) and presumably put his failures, and his feelings of failure behind him.
In recent weeks, anyone following the news must have intuitively sensed from watching and hearing the president that he would reject the Iraq Study Group's report, co-authored by a person he must have felt was the emissary of his father come to tell him that he had failed again. He chose escalation, the one solution most knowledgeable people agree cannot succeed, in order to keep alive the fiction that success still lies in the future.
The dynamic is becoming obvious to almost everybody.
But how much is Bush aware of this psychological dynamic and of the secret he's keeping? Not aware enough. That's the problem. Psychotherapists use the term "unconscious," but it isn't quite an accurate descriptor. We are aware of feelings, sensations and scripts that occur when one of our unseen psychic mechanisms is triggered. So, when an interviewer asked about the generals who demanded Rumsfeld be removed, and the president knew his father had been working behind the scenes to replace Rumsfeld, the question would not have triggered the conscious thought: there goes dad again trying to make me feel incompetent. Instead, the president may have felt a hollow sensation or a flush of anger, an urge to form a clownish grin to cover his watery feelings, and a script that would come out of his mouth as "I'm the decider." Beneath that would be the inadequacy and cover-up dynamic outlined here.
A president's psychology and his inner secrets are his or her own business, except in one important area. That is area covered by the question, "Does the psychology of this individual interfere with his or her ability to make sound decisions in the best interest of the nation?" Recent history has certainly been witness to presidents with psychodynamics that have damaged their historical legacies. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon come to mind. But in neither case was the very ability to make sound decisions compromised to the extent we believe it is with this president.
A Failed Process
Many accounts of the president suggest that his decision-making process is a failed one; in an important sense, it is no process at all.
Ambivalent feelings are normal at certain stages of decision-making, and the ability to tolerate ambivalence has been shown to be the hallmark of creative thinkers. The inability to tolerate uncertainty because you think that may imply incapacity brings decision-making to an end.
Thus, instead of focusing on the process needed to arrive at a decision, Bush marshals his defenses in order not to feel incompetent. That doesn't leave much room for exploring the alternatives required of competent decision-making. Not interested in discussion or detail (where the devil often lies), he seeks something minimal, just enough so he can let the decision come to him; it's his "gut" (read "God") that will provide the answer. But these gut feelings are the very feelings associated with his deep sense of inadequacy and his defenses against those feelings. So while he brags that he makes the "tough decisions," psychologically, he's defending himself against the very feelings of uncertainty that are the necessary concomitant to making tough decisions. His tough decision-making is a sham.
In the recent maneuvering toward the "new strategy" in Iraq, we have witnessed a great pretense of normal decision-making. But the president clearly made up his mind almost as soon as the "surge" alternative appeared, and apparently moved to cow others, including his new secretary of defense Robert Gates (his father's man) in the process. "Success" is the only alternative for him. "Failure" and disintegration of Iraq is unthinkable because it would be synonymous with his own internal disintegration.
As his decisions go awry, he exudes a troubling, uncanny aura of certitude (though some find it reassuring). He seems to expect to feel despised and alone (and probably has always felt that), as he has always secretly expected to fail. That expectation of failure leads to sloppy, risky, incompetent decisions, which in turn compel him to swerve from his fears of incompetence.
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions.
Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now.
----------
John P. Briggs, MD, is retired from over 40 years of private practice in psychotherapy in Westchester County, New York. He was on the faculty in psychiatry at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City for 23 years and was a long-time member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. He trained at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. J.P. Briggs II, PhD, is a Distinguished CSU professor at Western Connecticut State University and is the senior editor of the intellectual journal The Connecticut Review. He is author and co-author of books on creativity and chaos, including Fire in the Crucible (St. Martin's Press); Fractals, the Patterns of Chaos (Simon and Schuster); and Seven Life Lessons of Chaos (HarperCollins), among others. He is currently at work with Philadelphia psychologist John Amoroso on a book about the power of ambivalence in the creative process.
I came across this well written and researched article by clinical psychology experts and felt it was important enough to share with you. I am including the article in its entirety for you. It is not a polemic dressed in technical jargon. It is a careful analysis of observed and objective evidence to which accepted psychological and psychiatrict principles have been applied. I hope it provides food for thought. P
___________________________
Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
By John P. Briggs, MD, and J.P. Briggs II, PhD
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributors
Thursday 18 January 2007
President George W. Bush prides himself on "making tough decisions." But many are sensing something seriously troubling, even psychologically unbalanced, about the president as a decision-maker. They are right.
Because of a psychological dynamic swirling around deeply hidden feelings of inadequacy, the president has been driven to make increasingly incompetent and risky decisions. This dynamic makes the psychological stakes for him now unimaginably high. The words "success" and "failure" have seized his rhetoric like metaphors for his psyche's survival.
The president's swirling dynamic lies "hidden in plain sight" in his personal history. From the time he was a boy until his religious awakening in his early 40s, Bush had every reason to feel he was a failure. His continued, almost obsessive, attempts through the years to emulate his father, obtain his approval, and escape from his influence are extensively recorded.
His biography is peppered with remarks and behavior that allude to this inner struggle. In an exuberant moment during his second campaign for Texas governor, Bush told a reporter, "It's hard to believe, but ... I don't have time to worry about being George Bush's son. Maybe it's a result of being confident. I'm not sure how the psychoanalysts will analyze it, but I'm not worried about it. I'm really not. I'm a free guy."
A psychoanalyst would note that he is revealing here that he has been worrying about being his father's son quite a lot.
Resentment naturally contaminated Bush's efforts to prove himself to his father and receive his father's approval. The contradictory mix showed up in his compulsion to re-fight his father's war against Iraq, but this time winning the duel some thought his father failed to win with Saddam. He could at once emulate his father, show his contempt for him, and redeem him. But beneath this son-father struggle lies a far more significant issue for Bush - a question about his own competence, adequacy and autonomy as a human being.
We have seen this inner question surface repeatedly, and we have largely conspired with him to deny it:
· On September 11, 2001, we saw (and suppressed) the image of him sitting stunned for seven minutes in a crowd of school children after learning that the second plane had hit the Twin Towers, and then the lack of image of him when he vanished from public view for the rest of the day. Instead, we bought the cover-up image, three days after the attack, of the strong leader, grabbing the bullhorn in New York City and issuing bellicose statements.
· In 2004, we saw and denied the insecurity displayed when the president refused to face the 9/11 Commission alone and needed Vice President Cheney to go with him.
· In 2003, we saw and suppressed the dark side of the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing, in which a man who had ducked out on his generation's war and dribbled away his service in the Texas Air National Guard dressed up like Top Gun and pretended that he was a combat pilot like his father.
· Asked by a reporter if he would accept responsibility for any mistakes, Bush answered, "I hope I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not quick - as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." What we heard, and yet didn't hear, was a confession of his feelings of inadequacy and an arrogant denial those feelings all at once.
· In early 2006, when his father moved behind the scenes to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the son responded, "I'm the decider and I decide what's best" - and when he clenched his fist at a question about his father's influence, proclaiming, "I'm the Commander in Chief" - we glimpsed what was going on.
To cover up and defend himself against his feelings of his inadequacy and incompetence, Bush developed a number of psychological defenses. In his school years he played the clown. (His ability to joke about his verbal slip-ups is an endearing adult application of this defense to public life.) His heavy drinking was a classic way to anesthetize feelings of inadequacy. Indeed, drinking typically makes the alcoholic grandiose, which has led some commentators to argue that Bush has the "dry drunk" syndrome, where the individual has stopped drinking but retains the brittle psychology of the alcoholic. Other defenses now play especially powerful roles to protect the president against his internal feelings of insufficiency.
The Christian Defense
Bush has carefully let it be known that he believes the decisions he makes in office are directed by God. His famous claim to make decisions by "gut" ("I'm a gut player," he told Bob Woodward) equates with his claim of the spiritual inspiration he receives through prayer, his own and the prayers of others. Whatever else it is, this equation of his own choices with God's will has unparalleled advantages. It creates the perfect defense against any doubts he or anyone else might have that he can't make the right decision. The need to engage in analysis and explore alternatives to get there comes off the table. Instead, he has his gut; he has his God.
Being "born again" also allows the president to present himself as having relegated to the past all those previously inadequate behaviors of his younger days: the poor academic performance, the drinking, the failed businesses. He's a new man, no longer incompetent but now supremely competent as a result of his faith.
When Woodward asked Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." How wonderfully that appeal must seem to resolve the internal conflict about adequacy we have described above.
The Bully Defense
Bush's mother, Barbara (sarcastic, mean, disciplinarian, always with an acid-tongued retort), is probably the model for another major defense Bush deploys to defend himself against feelings of inadequacy. A friend at the time described her as "sort of the leader bully."
That bullies are insecure people is well known and fairly obvious. A bully covers insecurity with bluster and intimidation so that others won't find an opening to see how weak he feels.
Much of the world outside the US considers Bush a bully. "You're either with us or against us" is a bully's threat that anyone can recognize. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a bully's doctrine.
For his intimates and those closer to home, Bush appears to be what is called an emotional bully. An emotional bully gains control using sarcasm, teasing, mocking, name calling, threatening, ignoring, lying, or angering the other and forcing him to back down. Bush administration insider accounts describe this sort of behavior from the president. He's well known for his dismissive remarks. His penchant for giving nicknames to everyone has its dark, bully's side. Naming people is a way to control them.
In report by Gail Sheehy in 2000, recalled recently by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, we get a glimpse of how Bush's pervasive fear of failure (his absolute refusal to consider "failure as an option") and his bully defense go together. Sheehy interviewed friends from his teenage years and college years. In basketball or tennis games he would insist points be played over because he wasn't ready; he would force opponents who had beaten him to continue playing until he beat them. At Yale he would interrupt his fellow students' studying for exams (helping them fail) to compete in a popular board game, "The Game of Global Domination," at which he was the player noted for taking the most risks, being the most aggressive.
It's likely that speculations about Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice functioning as Bush's puppet-masters are 180 (or at least 160) degrees off. Bush is the president; he gets his way, and they know it. Chances are they have learned to channel his "gut" and give him policy advice that matches it. They may even imagine they are steering him, not clear about the ways that he has bullied them, elicited in them "The Stockholm Syndrome," in which hostages come to identify with and even defend the very person who is threatening them. This is the same dynamic evident in the behavior of battered spouses and members of gangs.
Ron Suskind described the small group around the president: "A disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness - a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners."
Biographical reports tell us that Bush's parents taught him to keep his inner feelings to himself. As psychiatrist Justin A. Frank noted in Bush on the Couch, this results in a "self-protective indifference to the pain of others." This is another aspect of his bully defense, projecting his inner pain onto others. Bush's remarkable drive for the power to torture terrorist suspects and his reported glorying in Texas executions during his terms as governor testify to his lack of compassion, despite his recent statement of qualms about seeing Saddam Hussein drop through the trap.
The Man of Splits and Oppositions
Being in the world, for all of us, involves the challenge to somehow integrate the opposites of our nature and to select our way through the many opposing choices presented us in life. The bully polarizes the natural ambivalence (the internal opposition) anyone feels about whether he is strong or weak, safe or vulnerable. A person who needs to feel invulnerable and completely adequate all the time, or who always feels helpless and inadequate, has polarized these emotions and leads a deformed life. The degree of internal polarization in President Bush appears to be serious - and widespread. Commentators have made lists of the president's polarities: the proclaimed uniter who is a relentless divider, the habit of "saying one thing and doing another," as Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords put it. The list is long and growing. It should include the oppositions that show up in his famous Bushisms, such as:
There is no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world worst leaders to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons.
They [the terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we.
To a psychiatrist, these are not mere malapropisms and mistakes in speech. They suggest ambivalence oscillating violently between poles. They suggest a desperate uncertainty about everything that the president reflexively seeks to hide by taking absolutist, rigid positions about "victory," "success," "mission accomplished," "stay the course," "compassion," "tax cuts," "no child left behind," and a host of other issues.
The Presidential Defense
Once Bush took the bullhorn at ground zero, he found perhaps the ultimate defense for his secret fears of inadequacy. As he told Bob Woodward, in Bush at War, "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." As commander in chief, as a war president, he could assemble his other psychological defenses around him. He could split the world into good and evil and the country would follow. His internal oppositions could be projected without much resistance from the populace or his adversaries. He could be the gut-led, divinely inspired "Decider," to save the country. He could project own internal fears of being "discovered as a fraud" into a threat "out there" waiting to happen. He could surround himself with loyalists whom he could emotionally bully, creating a new family that would admire him and that he could control. Meanwhile the ambiguities of political decisions that can always be rationalized offer a safe haven. Until history judges me (and that's a long way off, maybe never) I can't be definitively seen as incompetent.
But as much as the presidency is a perfect defense for disguising incompetence, it's also the perfect trap. It accelerates the positive feedback loop that was set in motion when he "changed his heart" around age 40 (committing himself to God) and presumably put his failures, and his feelings of failure behind him.
In recent weeks, anyone following the news must have intuitively sensed from watching and hearing the president that he would reject the Iraq Study Group's report, co-authored by a person he must have felt was the emissary of his father come to tell him that he had failed again. He chose escalation, the one solution most knowledgeable people agree cannot succeed, in order to keep alive the fiction that success still lies in the future.
The dynamic is becoming obvious to almost everybody.
But how much is Bush aware of this psychological dynamic and of the secret he's keeping? Not aware enough. That's the problem. Psychotherapists use the term "unconscious," but it isn't quite an accurate descriptor. We are aware of feelings, sensations and scripts that occur when one of our unseen psychic mechanisms is triggered. So, when an interviewer asked about the generals who demanded Rumsfeld be removed, and the president knew his father had been working behind the scenes to replace Rumsfeld, the question would not have triggered the conscious thought: there goes dad again trying to make me feel incompetent. Instead, the president may have felt a hollow sensation or a flush of anger, an urge to form a clownish grin to cover his watery feelings, and a script that would come out of his mouth as "I'm the decider." Beneath that would be the inadequacy and cover-up dynamic outlined here.
A president's psychology and his inner secrets are his or her own business, except in one important area. That is area covered by the question, "Does the psychology of this individual interfere with his or her ability to make sound decisions in the best interest of the nation?" Recent history has certainly been witness to presidents with psychodynamics that have damaged their historical legacies. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon come to mind. But in neither case was the very ability to make sound decisions compromised to the extent we believe it is with this president.
A Failed Process
Many accounts of the president suggest that his decision-making process is a failed one; in an important sense, it is no process at all.
Ambivalent feelings are normal at certain stages of decision-making, and the ability to tolerate ambivalence has been shown to be the hallmark of creative thinkers. The inability to tolerate uncertainty because you think that may imply incapacity brings decision-making to an end.
Thus, instead of focusing on the process needed to arrive at a decision, Bush marshals his defenses in order not to feel incompetent. That doesn't leave much room for exploring the alternatives required of competent decision-making. Not interested in discussion or detail (where the devil often lies), he seeks something minimal, just enough so he can let the decision come to him; it's his "gut" (read "God") that will provide the answer. But these gut feelings are the very feelings associated with his deep sense of inadequacy and his defenses against those feelings. So while he brags that he makes the "tough decisions," psychologically, he's defending himself against the very feelings of uncertainty that are the necessary concomitant to making tough decisions. His tough decision-making is a sham.
In the recent maneuvering toward the "new strategy" in Iraq, we have witnessed a great pretense of normal decision-making. But the president clearly made up his mind almost as soon as the "surge" alternative appeared, and apparently moved to cow others, including his new secretary of defense Robert Gates (his father's man) in the process. "Success" is the only alternative for him. "Failure" and disintegration of Iraq is unthinkable because it would be synonymous with his own internal disintegration.
As his decisions go awry, he exudes a troubling, uncanny aura of certitude (though some find it reassuring). He seems to expect to feel despised and alone (and probably has always felt that), as he has always secretly expected to fail. That expectation of failure leads to sloppy, risky, incompetent decisions, which in turn compel him to swerve from his fears of incompetence.
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions.
Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now.
----------
John P. Briggs, MD, is retired from over 40 years of private practice in psychotherapy in Westchester County, New York. He was on the faculty in psychiatry at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City for 23 years and was a long-time member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. He trained at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. J.P. Briggs II, PhD, is a Distinguished CSU professor at Western Connecticut State University and is the senior editor of the intellectual journal The Connecticut Review. He is author and co-author of books on creativity and chaos, including Fire in the Crucible (St. Martin's Press); Fractals, the Patterns of Chaos (Simon and Schuster); and Seven Life Lessons of Chaos (HarperCollins), among others. He is currently at work with Philadelphia psychologist John Amoroso on a book about the power of ambivalence in the creative process.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
When and How to “Cut” and “Run”
Some have expressed doubt of the power or ability of Congress to rein in an Executive Branch that has exceeded or misused authority granted under an emergency Resolution. The issue is not one of legal authority, as the Constitution clearly allows Congress the power to declare war or refrain from doing so, to revoke or rescind authority granted by an act of Congress and to cut off funding of actions that it does not support or authorize. The problem currently faced is one of practicality and political willpower to exercise any of those powers.
President Bush requested authority to use military force in Iraq, based upon the premise that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons which he intended to use against the United States and its allies or interests. This grant of authority followed the failure of the United States to persuade the United Nations to pass a resolution indicating that international intervention was warranted. While some nations refused to align themselves with the US position regarding the invasion for political reasons, most rejected the proposal on grounds that military force was unwarranted and likely to be unproductive when diplomatic measures had not been exhausted. Others were skeptical of the alleged “proof” of weapons of mass destruction.
Subsequent events have shown us that President Bush planned to invade Iraq and put those plans into motion even without United Nations approval or support. The purported justification for the attack has been shown to be false, as it was based upon erroneous intelligence or deliberately “cooked” reports and analyses. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological weapons being developed or stockpiled and there was no actual threat of attack by Iraq or Saddam Hussein against the United States or any of its allies. The alleged link between Osama Bin laden and Saddam Hussein made by the Bush Administration has been thoroughly discredited. In consequence, the entire basis or justification for the Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq has been proven false and unsubstantiated.
The justification that Bush now advances for keeping troops in Iraq is not a legal justification, it is clearly a bootstrap rationale. Having invaded Iraq, overthrown its government and destabilized its security and military organizations, Bush now justifies keeping American troops in Iraq based upon predictions that the situation will descend further into chaos and civil war if our troops leave. Rhetoric of “winning” in Iraq has been replaced with talk of “prevailing,” while neither term has been clearly defined for the American public nor the military personnel asked to sacrifice life and limb for the mission. In this regard, the current situation resembles Viet Nam.
Sen. Kennedy is on the right track in his Senate speech declaring that under any analysis possible, the current situation in Iraq does not resemble or reflect the circumstances or purpose for which Congress was requested to grant authority for military action in Iraq. Some might argue that by continuing to fund the continuously morphing “Mission” advanced by the Administration, Congress has implicitly renewed the authorization. However flawed this argument may be, it also supports the argument that cutting funding is an appropriate way to revoke that implied consent. Cutting off funding for any increase in troop deployment should be accompanied by a conditional appropriation that requires the President to provide Congress withy a detailed plan for extricating US military forces from Iraq.
But Congress needs to go a step further. An express finding that the basis for the prior authorization was unsubstantiated should be followed by a vote to rescind the authority. This action of cutting off the legal foundation for pursuing the “Mission” that Bush advances in greater and greater isolation would leave the President no choice except to develop and execute a strategy for bringing the troops home as promptly and safely as possible. While Bush is the Commander in Chief of military forces, this function only enables him to determine the manner in which military action authorized by Congress can be carried out. He does not have the unilateral authority to declare war or prosecute a military action not authorized by Treaty or an act of Congress.
When a beast has gone mad and is out of control, it must be “run to ground” and captured so that it cannot do harm to others. In a figurative sense, President Bush is acting like a mad animal. He refuses to listen to the mandate of the public, clearly expressed in the election last fall. He refuses to listen to military and foreign policy experts who have advised him or the risks and errors of his actions. He rejects the concerns of Democratic legislators as partisan sniping, and also rejects the advice and concerns expressed by members of his own party.
And so it falls to the Congress that unleashed the beast to run him to ground. To be sure, it is a scary and downright unpleasant task. We all would hope that the president would wake up some morning and see the situation as it really is and act rationally. But he has proven that he is incapable or unwilling to see past the delusions. Unless and until Congress takes action, the death toll and irreparable damage caused by the Bush rampage in Iraq will increase. So the time has clearly come to “cut” off the authority and funding for the mission, and to “run” the rampaging and uncontrolled beast to ground.
President Bush requested authority to use military force in Iraq, based upon the premise that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons which he intended to use against the United States and its allies or interests. This grant of authority followed the failure of the United States to persuade the United Nations to pass a resolution indicating that international intervention was warranted. While some nations refused to align themselves with the US position regarding the invasion for political reasons, most rejected the proposal on grounds that military force was unwarranted and likely to be unproductive when diplomatic measures had not been exhausted. Others were skeptical of the alleged “proof” of weapons of mass destruction.
Subsequent events have shown us that President Bush planned to invade Iraq and put those plans into motion even without United Nations approval or support. The purported justification for the attack has been shown to be false, as it was based upon erroneous intelligence or deliberately “cooked” reports and analyses. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological weapons being developed or stockpiled and there was no actual threat of attack by Iraq or Saddam Hussein against the United States or any of its allies. The alleged link between Osama Bin laden and Saddam Hussein made by the Bush Administration has been thoroughly discredited. In consequence, the entire basis or justification for the Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq has been proven false and unsubstantiated.
The justification that Bush now advances for keeping troops in Iraq is not a legal justification, it is clearly a bootstrap rationale. Having invaded Iraq, overthrown its government and destabilized its security and military organizations, Bush now justifies keeping American troops in Iraq based upon predictions that the situation will descend further into chaos and civil war if our troops leave. Rhetoric of “winning” in Iraq has been replaced with talk of “prevailing,” while neither term has been clearly defined for the American public nor the military personnel asked to sacrifice life and limb for the mission. In this regard, the current situation resembles Viet Nam.
Sen. Kennedy is on the right track in his Senate speech declaring that under any analysis possible, the current situation in Iraq does not resemble or reflect the circumstances or purpose for which Congress was requested to grant authority for military action in Iraq. Some might argue that by continuing to fund the continuously morphing “Mission” advanced by the Administration, Congress has implicitly renewed the authorization. However flawed this argument may be, it also supports the argument that cutting funding is an appropriate way to revoke that implied consent. Cutting off funding for any increase in troop deployment should be accompanied by a conditional appropriation that requires the President to provide Congress withy a detailed plan for extricating US military forces from Iraq.
But Congress needs to go a step further. An express finding that the basis for the prior authorization was unsubstantiated should be followed by a vote to rescind the authority. This action of cutting off the legal foundation for pursuing the “Mission” that Bush advances in greater and greater isolation would leave the President no choice except to develop and execute a strategy for bringing the troops home as promptly and safely as possible. While Bush is the Commander in Chief of military forces, this function only enables him to determine the manner in which military action authorized by Congress can be carried out. He does not have the unilateral authority to declare war or prosecute a military action not authorized by Treaty or an act of Congress.
When a beast has gone mad and is out of control, it must be “run to ground” and captured so that it cannot do harm to others. In a figurative sense, President Bush is acting like a mad animal. He refuses to listen to the mandate of the public, clearly expressed in the election last fall. He refuses to listen to military and foreign policy experts who have advised him or the risks and errors of his actions. He rejects the concerns of Democratic legislators as partisan sniping, and also rejects the advice and concerns expressed by members of his own party.
And so it falls to the Congress that unleashed the beast to run him to ground. To be sure, it is a scary and downright unpleasant task. We all would hope that the president would wake up some morning and see the situation as it really is and act rationally. But he has proven that he is incapable or unwilling to see past the delusions. Unless and until Congress takes action, the death toll and irreparable damage caused by the Bush rampage in Iraq will increase. So the time has clearly come to “cut” off the authority and funding for the mission, and to “run” the rampaging and uncontrolled beast to ground.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Seriously Now Folks!
There is a joke about a fellow driving the wrong way down a busy street where all the other traffic is headed the other way. Someone yells out to him that it is a one way street. To this he replies: “I’m only going one way!” George Bush, if he has heard the joke, must have misunderstood. He clearly has sided with the driver. Our President is nothing if not resolute and impervious. He is impervious to public opinion, expert advice, rational logic and common sense.
Every conceivable interested party, with the exception of Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki (whose motives as well as his capabilities must be held suspect), has spoken out against the wisdom or even sanity of the Bush troop surge plan. Bush has declared his intention to send more than 20,000 additional American troops into Iraq and spend an additional $1 Billion dollars on “reconstruction” projects. With a cost of $500 Billion for the Iraq war to date, the additional deployment is projected to cost at least $5 Billion more per month. There is no end date indicated in the Bush “New Strategy” and he says it is justified by “commitments” from the Iraqi government to form a unity government and to end political interference with military security initiatives. There is no concrete basis for confidence that the iraqi Prime Minister can deliver. Moreover, there is no deadline or target date for the Iraqi government to meet these so-called commitments. Nor are there any defined benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet to demonstrate compliance with or progress on meeting its commitments. When asked what the Bush Administration would do if the Iraqi’s failed to honor these commitments, Secretary Gates replied to the Senate Committee that they would have to “re-look at this strategy.”
Military experts with intimate knowledge of Iraq have stated publicly and privately that they do not support the troop surge for a number of reasons. The most salient reasons seem to be that it will be as ineffective as prior attempts to do the same thing, costing unjustified loss of life, and also that the military does not currently have the troops to rationally commit to such an initiative. They fear that the Bush strategy will push the military beyond the breaking point, as there has been no concurrent plan developed or executed to build up troop strength prior to proposing the deployment. In addition to the effect on morale from a failed mission, military experts point out that the initiative can only be accomplished by extending existing deployments and sending troops that have already served in Iraq back into the conflict.
The American people have demonstrated quite consistently over the past year that they do not support Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation. Polls have consistently shown disapproval ratings for Bush on Iraq at 65% or more. The public opposition to the current proposal approaches 80% in recent public polls. The Congressional election last fall demonstrated a clear message from the public that a change of course in Iraq was necessary. Bush’s response was to package more of the same policies and strategy and label it “New” while proceeding to ignore the voter mandate.
The worst tragicomedy can be found in Congress. A substantial number of Republican Representatives and Senators have taken the duplicitous position that they will support the President, because he is the “Commander in Chief,” despite being unable to articulate any rational basis for supporting the troop surge plan itself. They also decline to endorse the plan specifically because of fear of the voter reaction in the next election. Those vocally supporting the deployment have failed to state any specific reason why they believe that the additional troops will be successful in bringing an end to the sectarian violence. They bandy about undefined and largely meaningless terms about “winning” the war in Iraq.
Democrats have captured control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but seem to have utterly failed to consider or plan what they would do in the event that they gained control and needed to confront the President on his Iraq policies. They propose a weak “resolution” against the troop surge that is non-binding. Sen. Kennedy has shown the courage to introduce a Bill that would restrict government funding for any additional troop deployment, while continuing funding of current troops. The legislation would also call for a plan by the administration for a gradual redeployment of troops out of Iraq. The measure is not “new” because similar legislation was introduced in connection with the Viet Nam War to pressure the Administration to end involvement there. However, Democrats are squabbling among themselves about whether such a measure is appropriate. Ironically, the Kennedy Bill is probably the closest reflection of the voter mandate of the fall election: Support the troops; develop and implement a plan to bring them home; and end US involvement in what has become an Iraqi civil war.
The family of Ron-Michael Pellant of Minnesota represents a real life example of the impact of this political insanity. As a military reservist, he has been deployed in Iraq and was scheduled to come home in March of this year. His family learned from the media that his deployment would be extended an additional 125 days, and Ron-Michael still has not been officially informed. This tends to validate the assessments by top military professionals (Bush incidentally has relieved them of command) that the surge would require the extension of existing deployments.
Other GI’s have spoken out against the plan and troop morale will clearly be affected. Many reservists are scrambling to get out of their enlistment and reserve commitment because repeated deployment in Iraq was never what they contemplated when they signed on for the National Guard. At a time when the US Military needs to step up recruiting simply to fulfill basic staffing needs, the administration Iraq policies is further depleting the pool of recruits.
Despite this overwhelming consensus against deployment of additional troops in the middle of a civil war that most believe can only be resolved through a political solution, Bush stubbornly forges ahead with his so-called “New Strategy.” He continues to go his own “one way.” GOP Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a 2008 Presidential hopeful, publicly called the Bush troop surge proposal strategy the “worst strategic blunder since the Viet Nam War.” To paraphrase a quote borrowed from Charles Barkley: “(Chuck) may be wrong, but I doubt it!”
Every conceivable interested party, with the exception of Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki (whose motives as well as his capabilities must be held suspect), has spoken out against the wisdom or even sanity of the Bush troop surge plan. Bush has declared his intention to send more than 20,000 additional American troops into Iraq and spend an additional $1 Billion dollars on “reconstruction” projects. With a cost of $500 Billion for the Iraq war to date, the additional deployment is projected to cost at least $5 Billion more per month. There is no end date indicated in the Bush “New Strategy” and he says it is justified by “commitments” from the Iraqi government to form a unity government and to end political interference with military security initiatives. There is no concrete basis for confidence that the iraqi Prime Minister can deliver. Moreover, there is no deadline or target date for the Iraqi government to meet these so-called commitments. Nor are there any defined benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet to demonstrate compliance with or progress on meeting its commitments. When asked what the Bush Administration would do if the Iraqi’s failed to honor these commitments, Secretary Gates replied to the Senate Committee that they would have to “re-look at this strategy.”
Military experts with intimate knowledge of Iraq have stated publicly and privately that they do not support the troop surge for a number of reasons. The most salient reasons seem to be that it will be as ineffective as prior attempts to do the same thing, costing unjustified loss of life, and also that the military does not currently have the troops to rationally commit to such an initiative. They fear that the Bush strategy will push the military beyond the breaking point, as there has been no concurrent plan developed or executed to build up troop strength prior to proposing the deployment. In addition to the effect on morale from a failed mission, military experts point out that the initiative can only be accomplished by extending existing deployments and sending troops that have already served in Iraq back into the conflict.
The American people have demonstrated quite consistently over the past year that they do not support Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation. Polls have consistently shown disapproval ratings for Bush on Iraq at 65% or more. The public opposition to the current proposal approaches 80% in recent public polls. The Congressional election last fall demonstrated a clear message from the public that a change of course in Iraq was necessary. Bush’s response was to package more of the same policies and strategy and label it “New” while proceeding to ignore the voter mandate.
The worst tragicomedy can be found in Congress. A substantial number of Republican Representatives and Senators have taken the duplicitous position that they will support the President, because he is the “Commander in Chief,” despite being unable to articulate any rational basis for supporting the troop surge plan itself. They also decline to endorse the plan specifically because of fear of the voter reaction in the next election. Those vocally supporting the deployment have failed to state any specific reason why they believe that the additional troops will be successful in bringing an end to the sectarian violence. They bandy about undefined and largely meaningless terms about “winning” the war in Iraq.
Democrats have captured control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but seem to have utterly failed to consider or plan what they would do in the event that they gained control and needed to confront the President on his Iraq policies. They propose a weak “resolution” against the troop surge that is non-binding. Sen. Kennedy has shown the courage to introduce a Bill that would restrict government funding for any additional troop deployment, while continuing funding of current troops. The legislation would also call for a plan by the administration for a gradual redeployment of troops out of Iraq. The measure is not “new” because similar legislation was introduced in connection with the Viet Nam War to pressure the Administration to end involvement there. However, Democrats are squabbling among themselves about whether such a measure is appropriate. Ironically, the Kennedy Bill is probably the closest reflection of the voter mandate of the fall election: Support the troops; develop and implement a plan to bring them home; and end US involvement in what has become an Iraqi civil war.
The family of Ron-Michael Pellant of Minnesota represents a real life example of the impact of this political insanity. As a military reservist, he has been deployed in Iraq and was scheduled to come home in March of this year. His family learned from the media that his deployment would be extended an additional 125 days, and Ron-Michael still has not been officially informed. This tends to validate the assessments by top military professionals (Bush incidentally has relieved them of command) that the surge would require the extension of existing deployments.
Other GI’s have spoken out against the plan and troop morale will clearly be affected. Many reservists are scrambling to get out of their enlistment and reserve commitment because repeated deployment in Iraq was never what they contemplated when they signed on for the National Guard. At a time when the US Military needs to step up recruiting simply to fulfill basic staffing needs, the administration Iraq policies is further depleting the pool of recruits.
Despite this overwhelming consensus against deployment of additional troops in the middle of a civil war that most believe can only be resolved through a political solution, Bush stubbornly forges ahead with his so-called “New Strategy.” He continues to go his own “one way.” GOP Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a 2008 Presidential hopeful, publicly called the Bush troop surge proposal strategy the “worst strategic blunder since the Viet Nam War.” To paraphrase a quote borrowed from Charles Barkley: “(Chuck) may be wrong, but I doubt it!”
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Bush's "New Strategy" in Iraq - More Questions Than Answers
Advance information about the new "Iraq Strategy" being prepared for release this week suggests that the President will propose more troop deployment by the US and Iraq plus a commitment of approximately $1 Billion dollars for reconstruction projects. There are many pertinent questions to be raised and answered regarding such a strategy. Hopefully, Congress will ask these questions and demand answers before taking any further steps to authorize action or to fund Bush "new" escapade. Let's just address a few of the more obvious questions:
A. More Troops?
Did the development of this "new" strategy have the benefit of internal debate and thorough analysis of its weaknesses as well as its potential strengths? Last week, Bush has dismissed dissenting Generals who have questionewisdomwisdon or objected to the proposed deployment of more US troops.
Does the "promise" by the Iraqi Prime Minister to deploy up to five Iraqi Security Forces brigades have any credibility? More than three years of "training" effort by US forces has yielded, at most, only one fully capable Iraqi brigade. Evidence of desertion rates suggests that we have been most effective in training local militia forces that are now engaged in the sectarian strife, attacks and atrocities on Sunni civilians and the civil war combat. Even if deployed, would such forces create any greater stability or security, given the lack of trust they engender among Iraqi civilians?
Why would additional US troops create greater suppression of the civil war violence at this time when such "surges" in the past have failed? Gen. Casey, Gen. Powell and other knowledgeable military experts have concluded that such deployments at this time would be ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
B. Reconstruction Funding
Why would expenditure of $1Billion in additional reconstruction not be wasteful at this time? Although the Administration has endeavored mightily to prevent public release of the information, substantial evidence establishes that millions of dollars have been totally wasted in prior "reconstruction" efforts because no competent, reliable or secure means to administer the reconstruction efforts existed. The situation now is less stable and less secure.
Why should the administration be trusted to handle the proposed reconstruction? The Bush Administration previously sent marginally qualified political representatives to Iraq to handle reconstruction. This resulted in bags of cash being tossed off the back of trucks without any accounting and millions of dollars transferred to foreign accounts by corrupt Iraqi politicians and US contractors. More than a year has passed since Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration has been unable to administer substantial reconstruction authorization of less than $1Billion in an area that is stable and welcoming. The Bush administration has not proven itself capable of mobilizing and executing a reconstruction program on a substantially smaller scale in a non-hostile environment.
Why should the US taxpayers support the cost of reconstruction at a time when there is no real central government in Iraq and Iraq has the resources in petroleum reserves to fund its own needs? It is true that the US invasion destroyed much of the infrastructure, but repair of the damage from the constant bombing of roads and buildings need not be placed on the US taxpayer's tab.
To the extent that expertise is needed, the US or other civilian contractors could provide such assistance when the Iraqi people decide to create enough internal stability to make such construction feasible. Such efforts should not be controlled by the same failed Bush policies that led to no-bid and exclusive contracts to GOP cronies.
The presence of US troops provides a distraction and easy target for sectarian militia and other factions. With the American occupation force available as a common “enemy” the local Iraqi populace is not required to squarely confront the implications of sheltering those factions when they obstruct the rehabilitation and reconstruction of basic services in the cities and towns.
These are just the most basic practical questions that need to be addressed and have nothing to do with partisan politics. These and similar questions need to be addressed in order to provide even the most basic accountability. Bush wishes to invest more American lives and more financial resources in an adventure that to date has been an abysmal failure. The American people deserve some clear and direct answers before any such investment is even considered.
A. More Troops?
Did the development of this "new" strategy have the benefit of internal debate and thorough analysis of its weaknesses as well as its potential strengths? Last week, Bush has dismissed dissenting Generals who have questionewisdomwisdon or objected to the proposed deployment of more US troops.
Does the "promise" by the Iraqi Prime Minister to deploy up to five Iraqi Security Forces brigades have any credibility? More than three years of "training" effort by US forces has yielded, at most, only one fully capable Iraqi brigade. Evidence of desertion rates suggests that we have been most effective in training local militia forces that are now engaged in the sectarian strife, attacks and atrocities on Sunni civilians and the civil war combat. Even if deployed, would such forces create any greater stability or security, given the lack of trust they engender among Iraqi civilians?
Why would additional US troops create greater suppression of the civil war violence at this time when such "surges" in the past have failed? Gen. Casey, Gen. Powell and other knowledgeable military experts have concluded that such deployments at this time would be ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
B. Reconstruction Funding
Why would expenditure of $1Billion in additional reconstruction not be wasteful at this time? Although the Administration has endeavored mightily to prevent public release of the information, substantial evidence establishes that millions of dollars have been totally wasted in prior "reconstruction" efforts because no competent, reliable or secure means to administer the reconstruction efforts existed. The situation now is less stable and less secure.
Why should the administration be trusted to handle the proposed reconstruction? The Bush Administration previously sent marginally qualified political representatives to Iraq to handle reconstruction. This resulted in bags of cash being tossed off the back of trucks without any accounting and millions of dollars transferred to foreign accounts by corrupt Iraqi politicians and US contractors. More than a year has passed since Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration has been unable to administer substantial reconstruction authorization of less than $1Billion in an area that is stable and welcoming. The Bush administration has not proven itself capable of mobilizing and executing a reconstruction program on a substantially smaller scale in a non-hostile environment.
Why should the US taxpayers support the cost of reconstruction at a time when there is no real central government in Iraq and Iraq has the resources in petroleum reserves to fund its own needs? It is true that the US invasion destroyed much of the infrastructure, but repair of the damage from the constant bombing of roads and buildings need not be placed on the US taxpayer's tab.
To the extent that expertise is needed, the US or other civilian contractors could provide such assistance when the Iraqi people decide to create enough internal stability to make such construction feasible. Such efforts should not be controlled by the same failed Bush policies that led to no-bid and exclusive contracts to GOP cronies.
The presence of US troops provides a distraction and easy target for sectarian militia and other factions. With the American occupation force available as a common “enemy” the local Iraqi populace is not required to squarely confront the implications of sheltering those factions when they obstruct the rehabilitation and reconstruction of basic services in the cities and towns.
These are just the most basic practical questions that need to be addressed and have nothing to do with partisan politics. These and similar questions need to be addressed in order to provide even the most basic accountability. Bush wishes to invest more American lives and more financial resources in an adventure that to date has been an abysmal failure. The American people deserve some clear and direct answers before any such investment is even considered.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Heroism or Naivete? 2007 - Lesson #1
A man, who considers himself just a typical New Yorker, acted with split second instinct and heroic judgment to save the life of a teenage youth who had fallen from a New York City Subway platform after suffereing a seizure. This "average" man left his two young daughters on the platform, jumped down onto the tracks and used his body to shield the youth in the sunken cavity between the tracks as the oncoming subway train ran over them both. They both survived, though the cavity was only about 24 inches deep.
Wesley Autrey, a Black ex-Navy veteran, went where few of us would have dared to enter. He decided to risk his own life to save a youth he did not even know. He risked leaving his two young daughters fatherless, acting in a manner in which he believes that any true New Yorker should respond in a crisis. Some have called him foolish for undertaking the risk. What if he had been killed in front of his daughters? But Mr. Autrey apparently only knew that he was confronted with a crisis in which a young man faced life or death; and that he, Mr. Autrey, had the opportunity to do something about it. So he acted, and the youth's life was saved.
Whether his actions were naive and foolish or heroic bravery is perhaps in the mind of the beholder. But not since the firefighters and police responded to the disaster on September 11, 2003 have New Yorkers seen such a clear exposition of the selflessness and outright humanity that New Yorkers are capable of in times of crisis. Mr. Autrey sought no personal gain, and appears to be a man of limited means despite prior military service to his country. Indeed he even lacked the resources or the motivation to dress up in a suit and tie for national media exposure on the Today Show the next morning when the story broke. the only adornments he brought with him were his daughters, who witnessed their Daddy teach them a lesson in courage, humanity and humility that we all could benefit from. There will undoubtedly be hype and hoopla, but it is very doubtful that such attention was on the mind of Mr. Autrey when he dove beneath the train.
Perhaps we can take a page from the lesson book of Mr. Autrey. If he was capable of heroic response to a major crisis, by acting upon his beliefs and stepping up to help his fellow citizen, may we not feel emboldened to step up and support and defend our beliefs and help our fellow citizens as we face much less daunting challenges each day? Can we retrieve and revive an America "of the people and for the people," working together to help each other for the benefit of all, the way Mr Autrey apparently sees it? Or will we continue in the wasteland of self centered opportunism and arrogant greed and venal corruption that ignores the needs of our fellow man, our community and our children?
And what lessons are we teaching our children? Are we modeling courage and sacrifice to our children? Or are we supporting and praising short sighted greed and corruption that will leave an impoverished legacy for our children. The object lesson Mr. Autrey has brought us comes at an auspicious and an opportune time. May we study it well as we embark uppon the journey into 2007. And let us be thankful that men like Mr. Wesley Autrey are not yet extinct.
Wesley Autrey, a Black ex-Navy veteran, went where few of us would have dared to enter. He decided to risk his own life to save a youth he did not even know. He risked leaving his two young daughters fatherless, acting in a manner in which he believes that any true New Yorker should respond in a crisis. Some have called him foolish for undertaking the risk. What if he had been killed in front of his daughters? But Mr. Autrey apparently only knew that he was confronted with a crisis in which a young man faced life or death; and that he, Mr. Autrey, had the opportunity to do something about it. So he acted, and the youth's life was saved.
Whether his actions were naive and foolish or heroic bravery is perhaps in the mind of the beholder. But not since the firefighters and police responded to the disaster on September 11, 2003 have New Yorkers seen such a clear exposition of the selflessness and outright humanity that New Yorkers are capable of in times of crisis. Mr. Autrey sought no personal gain, and appears to be a man of limited means despite prior military service to his country. Indeed he even lacked the resources or the motivation to dress up in a suit and tie for national media exposure on the Today Show the next morning when the story broke. the only adornments he brought with him were his daughters, who witnessed their Daddy teach them a lesson in courage, humanity and humility that we all could benefit from. There will undoubtedly be hype and hoopla, but it is very doubtful that such attention was on the mind of Mr. Autrey when he dove beneath the train.
Perhaps we can take a page from the lesson book of Mr. Autrey. If he was capable of heroic response to a major crisis, by acting upon his beliefs and stepping up to help his fellow citizen, may we not feel emboldened to step up and support and defend our beliefs and help our fellow citizens as we face much less daunting challenges each day? Can we retrieve and revive an America "of the people and for the people," working together to help each other for the benefit of all, the way Mr Autrey apparently sees it? Or will we continue in the wasteland of self centered opportunism and arrogant greed and venal corruption that ignores the needs of our fellow man, our community and our children?
And what lessons are we teaching our children? Are we modeling courage and sacrifice to our children? Or are we supporting and praising short sighted greed and corruption that will leave an impoverished legacy for our children. The object lesson Mr. Autrey has brought us comes at an auspicious and an opportune time. May we study it well as we embark uppon the journey into 2007. And let us be thankful that men like Mr. Wesley Autrey are not yet extinct.
Why Not Just Kill The Messenger?
In a “shocking” [strike that] “startling” [no, not really, strike that too”…oh well..] “significant” development, following the broadcast of video footage of the execution of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi government announced that arrests were made respecting the unofficial depiction of misconduct by Iraqi officials handling the execution. The arrests, however, were of the persons accused of exposing the misconduct to the public. No charge has yet been publicly lodged that the persons being arrested were actually perpetrating the disrespectful and disgraceful taunting that preceeded the hanging or the cheering over Hussein’s dead body. While it may yet be revealed that the cell phone video footage was taken as a “souvenir” by Shiite attendees hoping to brag about their “final conquest”of Saddam Hussein, all that we know for certain is that the persons accused of revealing to the public the shoddy behavior and the disgraceful handling of what should have been a serious and official event have been arrested and accused of unlawful conduct. Since there was an Official Government Video of the event, any misrepresentation of the proceedings in the bootleg video could easily have been demonstrated. But the iraqi government has not disputed the accuracy of what was reported, only the public revelation of the truth.
In a better world, we might have hoped for the official response to focus on the perpetrators of the misconduct and the officials responsible for managing the execution with civility and due respect. However, in the current environment of cynicism and official corruption the response of attacking the messenger does not seem at all unpredictable. At least the public attention drawn to the matter, for whatever motives, will expose the baseness and inhumanity to which Iraqi society [and the international community] has sunk.
Perhaps the incident will also open the eyes of the US Congress to the obvious fact that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war that no US military force can “win.” The continuing bloodbath is clearly no longer about defeating an insurgency. It is a power struggle, carried out in bloody street warfare, over control of territory and resources in a deeply divided and chaotic country left with a leadership vacuum because of the bungled US invasion and subsequent occupation. Since our misguided President seems determined to pursue the absurd mission of “winning the war”in iraq, only the actions of Congress can intervene to limit further unnecessary loss of US military personnel. Whether by cutting off funding, except under a specific plan to withdraw forces, or through impeachment (if necessary), Congress must act to restore some sanity to US policy respecting Iraq.
In a better world, we might have hoped for the official response to focus on the perpetrators of the misconduct and the officials responsible for managing the execution with civility and due respect. However, in the current environment of cynicism and official corruption the response of attacking the messenger does not seem at all unpredictable. At least the public attention drawn to the matter, for whatever motives, will expose the baseness and inhumanity to which Iraqi society [and the international community] has sunk.
Perhaps the incident will also open the eyes of the US Congress to the obvious fact that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war that no US military force can “win.” The continuing bloodbath is clearly no longer about defeating an insurgency. It is a power struggle, carried out in bloody street warfare, over control of territory and resources in a deeply divided and chaotic country left with a leadership vacuum because of the bungled US invasion and subsequent occupation. Since our misguided President seems determined to pursue the absurd mission of “winning the war”in iraq, only the actions of Congress can intervene to limit further unnecessary loss of US military personnel. Whether by cutting off funding, except under a specific plan to withdraw forces, or through impeachment (if necessary), Congress must act to restore some sanity to US policy respecting Iraq.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Gerald Ford - Rest in Peace
The rise to power of Gerald Ford was as improbable as it was fortuitous for this country. Here was a man who became President and validated the maxim that the person most suited for the job is the person who does not seek it. Yet he answered the call of his country when perhaps it needed him most.
Torn asunder by a Viet Nam conflict that much of the country neither understood nor supported, and shaken by the revelation of extreme venality and cynical corruption by the President of the United States, the country needed a humble and essentially honest man. That commodity is something one would not expect to find in great supply in the halls of Congress. Yet from the ranks came Gerald Ford, a man who was more concerned about doing the peoples' business than doing side deals to line his pockets or increase his personal power.
Many question his decision to grant Nixon a pardon. Ford believed that history would judge Nixon, and in retrospect he was right. It was more important for the country to focus its energies upon healing and unification than persecuting a fallen leader who had resigned in disgrace. That decision seems so inconceivable in the context of the Congress that we have had for the past decade, one so immersed in political extremism and vendetta. The GOP led Congress would allow the country to sink into the sewer while focusing its energy upon scoring political points against the "enemy" Democrats. And the Democratic Congressional leadership has been quite willing to play along with the game while the White House has led an administration of global corruption that would make the puny efforts of Nixon look like those of a schoolyard punk.
The calm grace and humanity of President Ford, his support of Betty Ford at a time when many politicians would have turned their back upon an ailing wife {consider Newt Gingrich), and his ability to shift focus away from his person to the job he was determined to get done requires that history judge him kindly and with great respect. He deserves our thanks and our prayers. Rest in Peace, Mr. President.
Torn asunder by a Viet Nam conflict that much of the country neither understood nor supported, and shaken by the revelation of extreme venality and cynical corruption by the President of the United States, the country needed a humble and essentially honest man. That commodity is something one would not expect to find in great supply in the halls of Congress. Yet from the ranks came Gerald Ford, a man who was more concerned about doing the peoples' business than doing side deals to line his pockets or increase his personal power.
Many question his decision to grant Nixon a pardon. Ford believed that history would judge Nixon, and in retrospect he was right. It was more important for the country to focus its energies upon healing and unification than persecuting a fallen leader who had resigned in disgrace. That decision seems so inconceivable in the context of the Congress that we have had for the past decade, one so immersed in political extremism and vendetta. The GOP led Congress would allow the country to sink into the sewer while focusing its energy upon scoring political points against the "enemy" Democrats. And the Democratic Congressional leadership has been quite willing to play along with the game while the White House has led an administration of global corruption that would make the puny efforts of Nixon look like those of a schoolyard punk.
The calm grace and humanity of President Ford, his support of Betty Ford at a time when many politicians would have turned their back upon an ailing wife {consider Newt Gingrich), and his ability to shift focus away from his person to the job he was determined to get done requires that history judge him kindly and with great respect. He deserves our thanks and our prayers. Rest in Peace, Mr. President.
Put another in the “W” Column
Just when we were prone to think that President George W. Bush had pushed the limits of imagination in terms of incompetence, arrogance and poor judgment, our feckless leader seems to find a new way to top his latest achievement.
One recent rung achieved on the ladder of incredulity is the decision to send additional (ranging from 20,000 to 40,000) troops to Baghdad in the face of the deteriorating Iraqi civil war currently playing out. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their professional opinion that sending such additional troops would be ill-advised and quite possibly counterproductive. Past troop surges have done little or nothing to quell the rising sectarian violence and have provided additional cannon fodder, both political and physical, to warring factions who object to the US occupation forces. Additional troops signal Bush Administration intent to stay in Iraq indefinitely and to occupy the country under an already discredited puppet regime. Additional troops also provide more physical targets upon which these warring sectarian factions can direct and vent their wrath.
Former high ranking military officials, including Gen. Colin Powell (former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State), have stated that there really are no additional troops to send. The redeployment would require sending troops who have already served their tours of duty back to Iraq, and requiring those already in theater to remain longer. While it is not news that President Bush would ignore seasoned professional military advice regarding Iraq, his current proposal in the face of an already overtaxed military constitutes dereliction of responsibility as Commander in Chief.
Rising to even greater heights, or sinking to lower depths (depending upon one’s political viewpoint) the Bush Administration has also displayed publicly how poorly it can manage the Iraq fiasco. Just prior to the end of 2006, and coinciding roughly with the Hajj, one of the most holy events in the Muslim world, the Shiite led Iraqi regime that is tenuously propped up by the Bush Administration and US occupation forces chose to execute Saddam Hussein. This execution was carried out in haste, without time for a thorough appeal process or the opportunity for international diplomacy to weigh in. Moreover, the execution was apparently conducted in an unruly and disrespectful manner ill befitting a responsible government. The execution was recorded in video on a cell phone and the footage was subsequently broadcast, showing scandalous jeers and cheering by Shiite officials in charge of the proceeding. There is little wonder that Sunni claims of unfairness, political vendetta and impropriety could feel well grounded.
More importantly, history has taught those of us willing to learn that a martyr is a far more powerful foe than a deposed and incarcerated one. President Bush, rather than use his influence to forestall the execution, went to bed leaving an aide to issue a vacuous press statement following the hanging of Saddam Hussein. In an Iraq rife with sectarian violence, Bush took no action to prevent fuel from being thrown upon the current conflagration. This response to the official execution of a major "villain" over whom the President has taken this country to war and sacrificed the lives of many thousands is a travesty. And having allowed the conflict to escalate, through incompetence or impotence, Bush now wants to send yet more US soldiers into Iraq to add more deaths to the toll that has already climbed above 3000. He has failed to articulate any strategy or plan that would justify the additional deployment or respond rationally to the clearly stated opposition voiced by experienced military experts. Folks, I would say that it cannot get any more absurd than this, but I believe I said that last time….
One recent rung achieved on the ladder of incredulity is the decision to send additional (ranging from 20,000 to 40,000) troops to Baghdad in the face of the deteriorating Iraqi civil war currently playing out. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their professional opinion that sending such additional troops would be ill-advised and quite possibly counterproductive. Past troop surges have done little or nothing to quell the rising sectarian violence and have provided additional cannon fodder, both political and physical, to warring factions who object to the US occupation forces. Additional troops signal Bush Administration intent to stay in Iraq indefinitely and to occupy the country under an already discredited puppet regime. Additional troops also provide more physical targets upon which these warring sectarian factions can direct and vent their wrath.
Former high ranking military officials, including Gen. Colin Powell (former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State), have stated that there really are no additional troops to send. The redeployment would require sending troops who have already served their tours of duty back to Iraq, and requiring those already in theater to remain longer. While it is not news that President Bush would ignore seasoned professional military advice regarding Iraq, his current proposal in the face of an already overtaxed military constitutes dereliction of responsibility as Commander in Chief.
Rising to even greater heights, or sinking to lower depths (depending upon one’s political viewpoint) the Bush Administration has also displayed publicly how poorly it can manage the Iraq fiasco. Just prior to the end of 2006, and coinciding roughly with the Hajj, one of the most holy events in the Muslim world, the Shiite led Iraqi regime that is tenuously propped up by the Bush Administration and US occupation forces chose to execute Saddam Hussein. This execution was carried out in haste, without time for a thorough appeal process or the opportunity for international diplomacy to weigh in. Moreover, the execution was apparently conducted in an unruly and disrespectful manner ill befitting a responsible government. The execution was recorded in video on a cell phone and the footage was subsequently broadcast, showing scandalous jeers and cheering by Shiite officials in charge of the proceeding. There is little wonder that Sunni claims of unfairness, political vendetta and impropriety could feel well grounded.
More importantly, history has taught those of us willing to learn that a martyr is a far more powerful foe than a deposed and incarcerated one. President Bush, rather than use his influence to forestall the execution, went to bed leaving an aide to issue a vacuous press statement following the hanging of Saddam Hussein. In an Iraq rife with sectarian violence, Bush took no action to prevent fuel from being thrown upon the current conflagration. This response to the official execution of a major "villain" over whom the President has taken this country to war and sacrificed the lives of many thousands is a travesty. And having allowed the conflict to escalate, through incompetence or impotence, Bush now wants to send yet more US soldiers into Iraq to add more deaths to the toll that has already climbed above 3000. He has failed to articulate any strategy or plan that would justify the additional deployment or respond rationally to the clearly stated opposition voiced by experienced military experts. Folks, I would say that it cannot get any more absurd than this, but I believe I said that last time….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)