 |
| Volume XII, Winter 2005, Number 4 |
| |
| Editor's Note |
| |
As this issue goes to press, Irving Lewis ("Scooter") Libby - special assistant to Vice-
President Dick Cheney as well as to President George W. Bush himself - has just been indicted on
five counts of perjury. There will be a long wait, however, while the special prosecutor attempts to
prove in court that Libby did indeed lie to the FBI in trying to hide the fact that he had blown the
cover of a CIA officer. The question arises, could Libby be "the Rosetta Stone of the great intel
mumbojumbotron"? (metaphor courtesy of Josh Marshall, www.talkingpointsmemo.com). Let's
remember that Libby wrote Colin Powell's 2003 UN speech, from which Powell removed the more
risible claims - but left in enough of them that, even on that day, few diplomats present at the
General Assembly were duped. Powell recently admitted to Barbara Walters on national television
that this was a dark moment for him.
It is early days; this case will likely drag on to the end of the Bush term. The prosecution of the
first (alleged) liar is only the preliminary bout, but it might lead to the main event: the revelation of
how a neocon cabal lied the United States into war in Iraq. Just after Libby's indictment, the
Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate took that body into special session to insist on an honest
probe of the political background to the instigation of the war. Juan Cole, professor of political
science at the University of Michigan, explains what might happen: "A proper Senate investigation
offers the tantalizing possibility of a Unified Field theory of the Iraq War fraud. That is, [Douglas]
Feith's Office of Special Plans, [Larry] Franklin's Pentagon espionage cell on behalf of the Likud
party in Israel, and Libby's campaign against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, Valerie
Plame Wilson, could all be shown to be interrelated. At the center of the conspiracy was a group of
hawks determined to set the United States in motion to fight wars against Iraq, Syria and Iran; for
the neoconservatives among them, these wars would leave the Likud party free to pursue its
expansionist ambitions" (www.salon.com).
Readers of this journal may remember that in the January 2003 issue of Middle East Policy, we
published the charge that the "reasons" for the war were lies. This claim was made by Ian Lustick,
professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania and a member of our editorial
advisory committee (see at www.mepc.org the text of Lustick's remarks to our Capitol Hill conference).
Nevertheless, the war did happen, right on schedule, justified by bogus claims that have
recently been repudiated by Colin Powell himself. Two-and-a-half years and one second-term
election later, Powell's former deputy, Larry Wilkerson, revealed in a speech to the New America
Foundation that Lustick was right (see www.thewashingtonnote.com).
Lies about the threat from Iraq persuaded the American people to give the war party a second
term. Still reeling from 9/11 and manipulated into staying that way, the public was afraid to change
course in November 2004. Polls now show that the fear is aging off, however. President Bush's
popularity has plummeted, since he is apparently incapable of altering a course he came into office
determined to chart and stay: proving himself superior to his father. Winning that game means
never backing down, especially now that there is no Soviet Union to act as a brake on U.S.
ambitions. The father and his advisers were realists who considered peace a primary value; small
brush fires could trigger nuclear Armageddon. These men knew war. Bush, Sr., had fought Japan
in the Pacific Theater. Making war in order to rearrange the internal politics of a state that did not
threaten their own country was unthinkable to them. They have had the courtesy to be circumspect,
however, about criticizing the foreign policy of their friend's son. This, too, might be
changing as they witness the bellicose administration rhetoric now aimed at Syria and Iran.
In mid-October, the father's friend and former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft,
revealed in The New Yorker (October 31, 2005) his critique of the Iraq debacle. Scowcroft calls
neocons such as the war's main architect, Paul Wolfowitz, naive idealists. Could they have been
both naifs and liars, lying in a noble cause? Scowcroft terms them misguided. He relates a private
conversation with his protégé Condoleezza Rice in which she describes the Middle East as a mess
that somebody had to clean up. Rice apparently brushed aside the risks of sowing chaos in the world's most important strategic region, assuming that Iraq's oil riches would be in the hands of
our friends in the new regime after the initial unpleasantness was over. Scowcroft's belief in
balance of power was seen as outdated, replaced by the obligation to spread the panacea of
democracy - by force, if necessary. Rice testified to Congress on October 19, 2005, that the two
recent wars were part of a plan to "redesign" the Middle East. The reaction in the Senate was, with
a few exceptions, not outrage, though Barbara Boxer did remind her that the casus belli was the
threat of Saddam's mushroom cloud. Politicians are afraid of looking weak. Liberal hawks such as
senators Joseph Biden and John Kerry have not repudiated the war, just its implementation.
Our demonstrations of democracy in action seem unlikely to persuade those in the Middle East
whom the administration is determined to lift up. Analysts of neocon behavior (Robert Dreyfuss of
Rolling Stone, John R. MacArthur of Harper's) have pointed out that an affinity for totalitarianism
- forcing conformity to our system - owes more to the Bolsheviks than the Enlightenment.
Certainly "the ends justify the means" has no place in a democratic society. Yet the people who
brought you Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and their clones around the world still claim to be "democratizing"
the Middle East for its own good. They deserve the admonishments of the sages. Sun-Tzu
gave advice appropriate for those hoping the Bush administration will be brought down by its own
feckless incompetence: When your enemy is self-destructing, hang back. No doubt Clausewitz
said something similar. Arnold Toynbee, observing the decadence of the waning British Empire,
called it "suicidal statecraft." Pat Lang, a former official of the Defense Intelligence Agency and a
font of wisdom on the march of human folly, quotes a defender of those who lied us into the
current war: "Nothing wrong was done deliberately" (www.sicsempertyrannis2005.com). Say what?
The organization that brings you this journal is under attack, as are many of the analysts who
write for it (see Hudson, inside). This is a problem shared by the American mainstream churches
(see Stockton). The charge is that we are opposed to the policies of the state of Israel, led by the
Likud party. It is true that we are, generally speaking, in favor of the Geneva accords or any other
fair model for a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This is supposedly the policy of
the U.S. government, although it is honored more in the breach than the observance. But organizations
and individuals that do not trim their actions to fit the conventional wisdom, received ideas
and political correctness required by certain pressure groups are being smeared today as
antisemitic. The opportunity for this campaign was provided when 9/11 made it permissible to treat
Arab Muslims badly. The hate campaign is crude and unconvincing to the informed, but they are
not the target audience - that would be the general public, whom the Middle East Policy Council,
for instance, reaches with our workshops for teachers.
Even large, well-endowed organizations are vulnerable; they have to consider their long-term
fundraising. Nor can scholars afford to be too critical of Israel and its influence over the United
States. This is dangerous if one wants to be part of policy-influencing circles. Thus, group-think
becomes the coin of the realm (see Leon Hadar at www.antiwar.com on the lack of originality among
wonks at the top of the policy ziggurat; they care very much about being invited to the right dinner
parties). If you want freedom of speech, buy your own printing press. That is what George Naifeh
did when he started this organization in 1981. It is difficult to remain viable, but we are determined
to stay that way, by building an endowment, through soliciting major gifts and through internal
taxation. This is not a program for growth; that comes later, once our core programs are secure.
We have just received a grant that will ensure the continuation of this journal and our Capitol Hill
conference series for another five years. Our budget is bare-bones, and we will live within it in
order to be free. It's a struggle, but, as Camus said, "We must imagine Sysiphus happy."
Anne Joyce
November 8, 2005
|
| |
|
