The Widening Chasm: Realism vs Fanatist Fantasies
Jei
The Widening Chasm among Conservatives
Mike Whitney, The progressive Trail
January 29, 2005
The machinery of state decision-making is rarely exposed to public scrutiny.
The cover of representative government is a scrupulously maintained fiction
concealing the nuts-and-bolts of real statecraft. Normally, politicians and
their accomplices in the media can keep the illusion of representative
government intact; avoiding the embarrassing implication that the current order
is really upheld by the decision-making of elites. It's only when a major rift
appears between the members of the ruling class that we have the opportunity to
marvel at the moving parts of the imperial apparatus.
The deteriorating situation in Iraq has precipitated this very scenario. The
rift we allude to, has, in fact, developed into a yawning chasm; pitting one
faction of conservative elder statesmen against their antecedents in the Bush
administration. This battle of the giants can be expected to grow exponentially
as the principle characters clash over the future of the Iraq occupation.
On the one hand, we have perhaps the most widely respected (conservative)
policy experts alive today, advising the administration to withdraw from Iraq.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker have joined the ranks of
anti-war Leftists in calling for an immediate withdrawal of all American
troops. They have noted the failed attempts by the Bush administration to
establish even minimal security or to achieve the overall objectives of the
invasion. With Iraq tilting precipitously towards civil war, and with America's
prestige irreparably damaged, their protestations should be regarded as an
appeal for a return to political sanity.
Clearly these staunch supporters of American supremacy would never accept such
a humbling defeat if there was even the remotest possibility of success. This
gives us some idea of the extent to which the media has been concealing the
crucial details of the disaster in Iraq from the public. Even those who are
most likely to benefit the most from regional domination are jumping-off the
sinking ship-of-state.
The significance of this rebellion among conservative members of the ruling
establishment can't be overstated. The war in Iraq didn't evolve from a viable
threat to national security, but from consensus among elites that America's
future depended on projecting power into the Middle East. This is apparent in
everything from the manipulation of interest rates to accommodate aggression,
to the fabricated threats promoted by the corporate media, to the signatures of
the 60 oil giants (reported by Secretary of Treasury, Paul O' Neil) on Cheney's
Energy papers. (which divided up Iraqi oil fields months before the invasion)
Democracy: for Elites, that is.
One of the illusions of American-style democracy is the notion that policy is
driven by the will of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. In
fact, the entire corporate system of delivering information ("the media") is
predicated on the idea of selectively creating a message that is compatible
with the aims of elites. The interests of the public are never seriously
entered into the policy-making equation, except in terms of how their approval
can be obtained through the normal channels of calculated misinformation.
Policy is shaped by elites, for elites. It only changes when particular
policies lose favor among the men who are ensconced at the foot of power.
That's what makes the Baker-Scowcroft-Brzezinski insurgency worth noting; they
point to the growing number of policy-wonks, corporate big-wigs and political
powerbrokers who no longer support the Iraq occupation. Their position of
influence and respect among their colleagues would seem to make them the last
best hope for anti-occupation Americans.
James Baker who was instrumental in waging the legal battle that put G W Bush
in the White House, has said that continued American presence in Iraq threatens
to "undermine domestic support" and perpetuate the belief in the region that
Iraq is part of Washington's "imperial design".
Baker, a devoted Bush loyalist, has no problem with the morality of the
occupation, only with its efficacy. For him to suggest withdrawal is a clear
indication that the mission is unsalvageable.
Brent Scowcroft implicitly supports Baker's analysis. Scowcroft, who is former
National Security Advisor, served in both the H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford
administrations and has solid record of commitment to conservative issues.
Ideologically he is cut from the same cloth as Bush, although the extremism of
the neocons has created a significant divide between old guard Republicans like
Scowcroft and the new establishment.
At a recent meeting of the New America Foundation, Scowcroft gave a bitter
critique of the Iraq conflict warning that the "war of choice" was jeopardizing
long-held alliances and endangering America's stature in the world.
He said that the upcoming elections "won't be a promising transformation, and
has the potential for deepening the conflict; we may be seeing incipient civil
war at this time." Scowcroft emphasized his deep misgivings about war by
suggesting that we should consider "whether we get out now" before more damage
is done to American credibility and prestige. (Scowcroft also provided a
withering summary of the Afghanistan debacle, the likes of which have only
previously appeared on Left-wing web sites. He said, "We did not go into
Afghanistan because it was Afghanistan, we went in because it was the
headquarters for Al Qaeda and the Taliban was supporting Al Qaeda. And we have
pretty well cleaned out the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Now
Afghanistan stands as it was when the Soviet Union left -- A FAILED STATE. And,
one election a democracy does not make. We've been really lucky about Karzai,
he turned out to be pretty good, and rather lucky for us -- but he is still
more the MAYOR OF KABUL than he is the president of Afghanistan. The warlords
are not only alive and well, they are thriving and running much of that
country. They probably have at their disposal more resources than they ever had
before because Afghanistan is TURNING INTO A NARCO-STATE. We have precious
little experience in dealing with failed states and putting them together we
have to prevent it from receding back to the condition it was in 94 when we
gave up on it before and have it become a haven for terrorism."
"Narco-state"? "Mayor of Kabul"? "Failed state" run by "warlords"? These are
the very same observations made by critics of the Afghanistan war for more than
three years. It is extraordinary to see that these SAME VIEWS ARE SHARED BY
REPUBLICAN INSIDERS behind closed doors.
Although, the media still characterizes Afghanistan as a Bush success, it's
refreshing to know that serious analysts are not similarly in denial.
Afghanistan has been a dismal failure; Scowcroft's comments only reinforce that
point.)
Zbigniew Brzezinski has provided an even more scathing appraisal of the Iraq
war. Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter, is widely
regarded as one of the foremost authorities on international affairs and
foreign policy. Apart from being the architect of America's clandestine war in
Afghanistan in the 1980's (through the funding and arming of Islamic militants)
he's a master of American Realpolitik and a Machiavellian-type strategist. His
book "The Grand Chessboard" provides the basic blueprint for American global
domination through projection of force into Eurasia and consolidating control
over Middle East oil in the Caspian Basin. The current imperial strategy being
carried out by the Bush White House is mainly Brzezinski's invention.
Brzezinski's criticism was succinct and blistering: "A great deal of what is
happening thus far in American Foreign Policy has been influenced by the
ongoing conflict in Iraq. ~Ethat war which was a war of choice is already a
serious moral set back to the United States. A moral set-back both in how we
start, how it was justified, and because of some of the egregious incidents
that have accompanied this proceeding. The moral costs to the United States are
high. It's a political setback.
"While our ultimate objectives are very ambitious we will never achieve
democracy and stability without being willing to commit 500,000 troops, spend
$200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of war
compensation. As a society, we are not prepared to do that. There comes a point
in the life of a nation when such sacrifices are not justified . . .and only
time will tell if the United States is facing a moment of wisdom, or is
resigned to cultural decay."
Brzezinski's is not a man given to rhetorical flights of fancy. He's known for
his bare-knuckle, "take-no-prisoners" Kissinger-style approach to foreign
policy. His denunciation of the war in Iraq as a "moral setback" or, more
significantly, as a sign of "MORAL DECAY" will be construed by many political
realists as a sign that we cannot succeed in our stated goals.
Brzezinski's assessment of war extends far beyond the battlefield to its
devastating affect on America's "international legitimacy". As a sign of how
despised the Bush crusade has been around the world, Brzezinski cites a poll
taken earlier in the year that shows a vast number of interviewees were
disappointed "that more Americans were not killed" in the invasion.
Brzezinski opines, "That is some measure of the depth of the animus to our
policies." As for Brzezinki's estimate of what it will take to succeed in Iraq
("500,000 troops, $200 billion a year, and a draft") it is an astute
approximation that is entirely consistent with the conclusions of many in the
Defense establishment, including General Shinseki who was removed from duty for
making similar calculations. The broader issue, however, is summarized by the
comments of James Dobbins from the conservative Rand Corporation when he
admitted, "THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM IS TO REALIZE THAT WE CAN'T WIN" Dobbins
remarks are underscored by Iraq's Intelligence Chief, General Mohammed Shahwani
concession that the, "US was facing 40,000 hard-core fighters" and a support
group of as "many as 150,000 to 200,000".
Predictably, the story was buried in the western press, but the implications
are clear. The Pentagon has been lying to the American people about the size
and strength of the insurgency, (previous estimates were between 5,000 to
20,000 total) and the likelihood of winning the conflict is slim to none.
America's right-wing elite fully grasp the meaning of these numbers. That's why
retired General Gary Luck was sent to Iraq to provide a comprehensive
assessment of the current reality on the ground. Secretary Rumsfeld knows
full-well that Luck will return home with a detailed analysis of a
deteriorating security situation and a well rehearsed appeal for more ground
troops. Whether or not Luck's report will be the basis for reinstating the
draft is uncertain, but it will signal the steady escalation of men and
resources devoted to America's latest quagmire.
The growing chasm between American elites will have no measurable affect on the
embattled White House. Already, the administration has announced its intention
to keep at least 120,000 troops deployed in Iraq for at least the next three
years. This is a clear message to the nay-sayers that their advice has been
duly rejected. As Donald Rumsfeld said just recently, "They'll be no second
guessing". The grand-plan to occupy Iraq will continue and the voices of reason
will be silenced. By marginalizing Baker, Scowcroft and Brzezinski the
administration is severing relations with their ideological forebears. The
project in Iraq is now cut-off from the reasoned analysis of conservative
policy experts and is supported only by the hard-right ideology of political
extremists. As the ground is increasingly cut away from more and more of the
people who might provide some rational relief to the bloodletting; the project
becomes more infused with the incendiary rhetoric of religiosity and
nationalism. The crusade in Iraq is now propped up by nothing more than the
flimsy stanchions of hubris and delusion; the foundation blocks of catastrophe.