Brent Scowcroft "Breaks Ranks" with George W. Bush
PagCal
"Breaking Ranks" | Main
October 23, 2005
Brent Scowcroft "Breaks Ranks" with George W. Bush in Major New Yorker
Article
Jeffrey Goldberg has written a critique in The New Yorker of the Bush
White House that equals Ron Suskind's devastating critique of Bush
before the last election titled "Without a Doubt."
In "Breaking Ranks: What Turned Brent Scowcroft Against the Bush
Administration?", Jeffrey Goldberg coaxes Brent Scowcroft to delineate
his differences with the foreign policy proclivities of George W. Bush,
Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and others.
And in the piece, George H.W. Bush is interviewed about Scowcroft -- and
while Bush 41's comments are more elliptical, he stands clearly by
Scowcroft's side in clear criticism of the decisions his son made.
This critique by Scowcroft hardens the foundation of critique that
others have recently put in place -- particularly from Col. Lawrence
Wilkerson, former State Department Chief of Staff under Colin Powell who
spoke at the New America Foundation last Wednesday. Wilkerson's remarks
have swept like wildfire through the media and are the subject of a
Richard Holbrooke article today in the New York Times and also a core
column of discussion on this morning's "Meet the Press."
Jeffrey Goldberg's article is a devastating, serious critique of George
W. Bush's foreign policy and national security team.
I have read the entire article -- which I recommend that TWN readers
access as quickly as possible. I don't believe that The New Yorker
provides links to articles, but buy this magazine. . .it's way, way, way
worth it.
I am going to provide some longish excerpts to give insight into some of
the most intriguing and useful commentary.
From "Breaking Ranks: What Turned Brent Scowcroft Against the Bush
Administration?", Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Yorker, 31 October 2005
Scowcroft on Iraq and Neocon Idealism
A principal reason that the Bush Administration gave no thought to
unseating Saddam was that Brent Scowcroft gave no thought to it. An
American occupation of Iraq would be politically and militarily
untenable, Scowcroft told Bush. And though the President had employed
the rhetoric of moral necessity to make the case for war, Scowcroft
said, he would not let his feelings about good and evil dictate the
advice he gave the President.
It would have been no problem for America's military to reach
Baghdad, he said. The problems would have arisen when the Army entered
the Iraqi capital. "At the minimum, we'd be an occupier in a hostile
land," he said. "Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and, once
we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for
leaving? I don't like the term 'exit strategy' -- but what do you do
with Iraq once you own it?"
Scowcroft stopped for a moment. We were sitting in the offices of
the Scowcroft Group, a consulting firm he heads, in downtown Washington.
He appeared to be weighing the consequences of speaking his mind. His
speech is generally calibrated not to give offense, especially to the
senior Bush and the Bush family. He is eighty and, by most accounts, has
been content to cede visibility to the larger personalities with whom he
has worked.
James Baker told me that he and Scowcroft got along well in part
because Scowcroft let Baker speak for the Administration. I learned from
people who know Scowcroft that he finds it painful to be seen as
critical of his best friend’s son, but in the course of several
interviews prudence several times gave way to impatience. "This is
exactly where we are now," he said of Iraq, with no apparent
satisfaction. "We own it. And we can't let go. We're getting sniped at.
Now, will we win? I think there's a fairchance we'll win. But look at
the cost."
The first Gulf War was a success, Scowcroft said, because the
President knew better than to set unachievable goals. "I'm not a
pacifist," he said. "I believe in the use of force. But there has to be
a good reason for using force. And you have to know when to stop using
force." Scowcroft does not believe that the promotion of American-style
democracy abroad is a sufficiently good reason to use force.
"I thought we ought to make it our duty to help make the world
friendlier for the growth of liberal regimes," he said. "You encourage
democracy over time, with assistance, and aid, the traditional way. Not
how the neocons do it."
The neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently
for the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by
violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. "How do the neocons bring
democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you
evangelize." And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the
consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. "This was said
to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism," he said.
Scowcroft on Iraq & Israel
In August of 2002, seven months before George W. Bush launched the
invasion of Iraq, Scowcroft upset the White House with an opinion piece
in the Wall Street Journal. The headline read, "DON'T ATTACK SADDAM."
Scowcroft would have preferred something more nuanced, he told me, but
the words accurately reflected his message.
In the article, he argued that an invasion of Iraq would deflect
American attention from the war on terrorism, and that it would do
nothing to solve the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, which
he has long believed is the primary source of unhappiness in the Middle
East. Unlike the current Bush Administration, which is unambiguously
pro-Israel, Scowcroft, James Baker, and others associated with the elder
George Bush believe that Israel's settlement policies arouse Arab anger,
and that American foreign policy should reflect the fact that there are
far more Arabs than Israelis in the world.
"The obsession of the region . . . is the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict," Scowcroft wrote in the Journal. "If we were seen to be
turning our back on that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or
wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order
to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us."
Scowcroft went on to say that the United States was capable of defeating
Saddam's military. "But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it
undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the
U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam
would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to
unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses."
Scowcroft's Frustration Communicating with Bush 43
Like nearly everyone else in Washington, Scowcroft believed that
Saddam maintained stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, but he
wrote that a strong inspections program would have kept him at bay.
"There may have come a time when we would have needed to take Saddam
out," he told me. "But he wasn't really a threat. His Army was weak, and
the country hadn't recovered from sanctions." Scowcroft's colleagues
told me that he would have preferred to deliver his analysis privately
to the White House. But Scowcroft, the apotheosis of a Washington
insider, was by then definitively on the outside, and there was no one
in the White House who would listen to him. On the face of it, this is
remarkable: Scowcroft's best friend's son is the President; his friend
Dick Cheney is the Vice-President; Condoleezza Rice, who was the
national-security adviser, and is now the Secretary of State, was once a
Scowcroft protege; and the current national-security adviser, Stephen
Hadley, is another protege and a former principal at the Scowcroft Group.
Scowcroft on Cheney: "The Real Anomaly"
"The real anomaly in the Administration is Cheney," Scowcroft said.
"I consider Cheney a good friend -- I've known him for thirty years. But
Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." He went on, "I don't think Dick
Cheney is a neocon, but allied to the core of neocons is that bunch who
thought we made a mistake in the first Gulf War, that we should have
finished the job. There was another bunch who were traumatized by 9/11,
and who thought, 'The world's going to hell and we've got to show we're
not going to take this, and we've got to respond, and Afghanistan is
O.K., but it's not sufficient.'" Scowcroft supported the invasion of
Afghanistan as a "direct response" to terrorism.
On George W. Bush Not Hearing Dissent or Considering Alternative Views
-- With A Nudge from Bush 41
A common criticism of the Administration of George W. Bush is that
it ignores ideas that conflict with its aims. "We always made sure the
President was hearing all the possibilities," John Sununu, who served as
chief of staff to George H. W. Bush, said. "That's one of the
differences between the first Bush Administration and this Bush
Administration."
I asked Colin Powell if he thought, in retrospect, that the
Administration should have paid attention to Scowcroft's arguments about
Iraq. Powell, who is widely believed to have been far less influential
in policymaking than either Cheney or the Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, said, pointedly, "I always listen to him. He's a very analytic
and thoughtful individual, he's powerful in argument, and I've never
worked with a better friend and colleague."
When, in an e-mail, I asked George H.W. Bush about Scowcroft's most
useful qualities as a national-security adviser, he replied that
Scowcroft "was very good about making sure that we did not simply
consider the 'best case,' but instead considered what it would mean if
things went our way, and also if they did not."
Bush 41 Unable to Mend Fences Between Bush 43 and Scowcroft
According to friends of the elder Bush, the estrangement of his son
and his best friend has been an abiding source of unhappiness, not only
for Bush but for Barbara Bush as well. George Bush, the forty-first
President, has tried several times to arrange meetings between his son,
"Forty-three," and his former national-security adviser to no avail,
according to people with knowledge of these intertwined relationships.
"There have been occasions when Forty-one has engineered meetings in
which Forty-three and Scowcroft are in the same place at the same time,
but they were social settings that weren't conducive to talking about
substantive issues," a Scowcroft confidant said.
Few Areas of Foreign Policy Agreement Between Scowcroft and George W. Bush
When I asked Scowcroft if the son was different from the father, he
said, "I don't want to go there," but his dissatisfaction with the son's
agenda could not have been clearer. When I asked him to name issues on
which he agrees with the younger Bush, he said, "Afghanistan." He paused
for twelve seconds. Finally, he said, "I think we're doing well on
Europe," and left it at that.
Scowcroft's Deteriorarting Relationship with Condoleeza Rice
The disintegrating relationship between Scowcroft and Condoleezza
Rice has not escaped the notice of their colleagues from the first Bush
Administration. She was a political-science professor at Stanford when,
in 1989, Scowcroft hired her to serve as a Soviet expert on the National
Security Council.
Scowcroft found her bright -- "brighter than I was" -- and
personable, and he brought her all the way inside, to the Bush family
circle. When Scowcroft published his Wall Street Journal article, Rice
telephoned him, according to several people with knowledge of the call.
"She said, 'How could you do this to us?'" a Scowcroft friend recalled.
"What bothered Brent more than Condi yelling at him was the fact that
here she is, the national-security adviser, and she's not interested in
hearing what a former national-security adviser had to say."
Scowcroft on Rice's Foreign Policy Deficits & Israel Policy
Scowcroft told me that he still has a high regard for Rice. He did
note, however, that her "expertise is in the former Soviet Union and
Europe. Less on the Middle East." Rice, through a spokesman, said,
"Sure, we've had some differences, and that's understandable. But he's a
good friend and is going to stay a good friend."
Yet the two do not see each other much anymore. According to
friends of Scowcroft, Rice has asked him to call her to set up a dinner,
but he has not, apparently, pursued the invitation. The last time the
two had dinner, nearly two years ago, it ended unhappily, Scowcroft
acknowledged.
"We were having dinner just when Sharon said he was going to pull
out of Gaza," at the end of 2003. "She said, 'At least there's some good
news,' and I said, 'That's terrible news.' She said, 'What do you mean?'
And I said that for Sharon this is not the first move, this is the last
move. He's getting out of Gaza because he can't sustain eight thousand
settlers with half his Army protecting them. Then, when he's out, he
will have an Israel that he can control and a Palestinian state atomized
enough that it can’t be a problem." Scowcroft added, "We had a terrible
fight on that."
They also argued about Iraq. "She says we're going to democratize
Iraq, and I said, 'Condi, you're not going to democratize Iraq,' and she
said, 'You know, you're just stuck in the old days,' and she comes back
to this thing that we've tolerated an autocratic Middle East for fifty
years and so on and so forth," he said. Then a barely perceptible note
of satisfaction entered his voice, and he said, "But we've had fifty
years of peace."
Scowcroft's Realism on the Middle East
Scowcroft is unmoved by the stirrings of democracy movements in the
Middle East. He does not believe, for instance, that the signs of a
democratic awakening in Lebanon are related to the Iraq war. He sees the
recent evacuation of the Syrian Army from Lebanon not as a victory for
self-government but as a foreshadowing of civil war. "I think it's
something we have to worry about -- the sectarian emotions that were
there when the Syrians went in aren't gone."
Scowcroft and those who share his views believe that the reality of
life in Iraq at the moment is undermining the neoconservative agenda.
Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who
served as Colin Powell's chief policy planner during the first Bush
Administration (and who was Scowcroft's Middle East expert on the
National Security Council during the first Gulf War) said that the days
of armed idealism are over. "We've seen the ideological high-water
mark," he said. "I mean wars of choice, and unilateralism, and by that I
mean an emphasis, almost to the point of exclusion of everything else,
on regime change as opposed to diplomacy aimed at policy change."
Scowcroft on Wolfowitz
One day, I mentioned to Scowcroft an interview I had had with Paul
Wolfowitz, when he was Donald Rumsfeld's deputy. Wolfowitz was the
leading neoconservative thinker in the senior ranks of the current Bush
Administration. (He is now the president of the World Bank.) I asked him
what he would think if previously autocratic Arab countries held free
elections and then proceeded to vote Islamists into power. Wolfowitz
answered, "Look, fifty per cent of the Arab world are women. Most of
those women do not want to live in a theocratic state. The other fifty
per cent are men. I know a lot of them. I don't think they want to live
in a theocratic tate."
Scowcroft said of Wolfowitz, "He's got a utopia out there. We're
going to transform the Middle East, and then there won't be war anymore.
He can make them democratic. He is a tough-minded idealist, but where he
is truly an idealist is that he brushes away questions, says, 'It won't
happen,' whereas I would say, 'It's likely to happen and therefore you
can't take the chance.' Paul's idealism sweeps away doubts."
Wolfowitz, for his part, said to me, "It's absurdly unrealistic,
demonstrably unrealistic, to ignore how strong the desire for freedom
is." Scowcroft said that he is equally concerned about Wolfowitz's
unwillingness to contemplate bad outcomes and Kagan's willingness to
embrace them on principle. "What the realist fears is the consequences
of idealism," he said. "The reason I part with the neocons is that I
don't think in any reasonable time frame the objective of democratizing
the Middle East can be successful. If you can do it, fine, but I don't
think you can, and in the process of trying to do it you can make the
Middle East a lot worse."
He added, "I'm a realist in the sense that I'm a cynic about human
nature."
An Odd Exchange with Sharansky: Insight into Bush 43's Views of his Father
In September, Sharansky was in Washington at the invitation of
Condoleeza Rice; he gave the closing speech at a State Department
conference on democratization. "Can you believe it?" he said to me just
before the session. "Rice gave the opening speech and I give the
closing?" Of his complicated relations with the Bush family, he said, "A
few days after my book comes out, I get a call from the White House.
'The President wants to see you.' So I go to the White House and I see
my book on his desk. It is open to page 210. He is really reading it.
And we talk about democracy.
This President is very great on democracy. At the end of the
conversation, I say, 'Say hello to your mother and father.' And he said,
'My father?' He looked very surprised I would say this.” Sharansky went
on, "So I say to the President, 'I like your father. He is very good to
my wife when I am in prison.' And President Bush says, 'But what about
Chicken Kiev?'"
Sharansky smiled as he recounted this story. "The President looked
around the room and said, 'Who is responsible for that Chicken Kiev
speech? Find out who wrote it. Who is responsible?' Everyone laughed."
Sharansky paused, and looked at me intently. He had a broad grin. "I
know who wrote Chicken Kiev speech," he said. "It was Scowcroft!"
Scowcroft may have had a hand in the speech, but when I asked
George H.W. Bush about it he answered as if it had been his own idea. “I
got hammered on the Kiev speech by the right wing and some in the press,
but in retrospect I think the Baltic countries understood that we were
being cautious vis-a-vis the Soviet Union," Bush said. "And their
freedoms were established without a shot being fired."
Jeffrey Goldberg does a masterful job of telling the Scowcroft story --
and of getting into what makes him tick.
I happen to know that Scowcroft did not know that the article was coming
out this week and would have preferred his views to air some time after
a week of potential indictments by Patrick Fitzgerald of White House
heavyweights.
Nonetheless, the article is out. Scowcroft has significant disdain for
the negative consequences of Bush's decisions on the nation's
well-being. Lawrence Wilkerson filled in many of the other pieces not
covered here in his revelations about a "cabal" in the White House that
cast away essential guidance from the 1947 National Security Act.
Get the full article.
-- Steve Clemons
Posted by steve at October 23, 2005 01:40 PM
Comments
The New Yorker puts most (but not all) of its articles on line, and has
done this with all of the Hersh articles of the last couple of years.
Check http://www.newyorker.com/ tomorrow morning.
Many thanks for setting up the Wilkerson speech.
Posted by: penalcolony at October 23, 2005 03:45 PM
Mr. Clemons,
Thanks for posting all this. I plan to buy the issue later this week. It
should be an interesting week.
Posted by: Jake at October 23, 2005 04:56 PM
Steve -- thanks for posting this a day early...
One thing I sincerely hope is that Democratic elected officials (and
potential presidential candidates for 2008) take Scowcroft's advice to
heart. It's just as valid for us as it is for them. There's still a
majority of the Democratic foreign policy elite which rejects the
'realist' view of the Middle East, and clings to some of the same
fantasies that the neocons do, namely that 1) democracy will replace
secular authoritarian regimes with secular liberal ones in the
near-term, and 2) that solving the "democracy deficit" is the key to
U.S. interests in the region, not solving the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, since Arab hatred of the U.S. and Israel is the result of Arab
governments trying to turn frustrations with their rule and their
failings outward.
There is already the beginning of a debate among Democrats over whether
"liberating" Iraq for the sake of spreading democracy in the Arab world
was a good idea in principle, just poorly implemented by an inept
Republican administration. I don't think the grassroots of the
Democratic party supports that view to a significant degree, but it's
quite strong among the leading lights inside the beltway.
Posted by: Greg Priddy at October 23, 2005 05:18 PM
That is one fascinating article. Thanks for previewing it---I'll buy the
magazone tomorrow.
Posted by: steveb at October 23, 2005 05:21 PM
Fifty years of peace in the Middle East? I'm sorry, but are we and
Mister Scowcroft living on different planets?
I'm all for saying that the Bush policy is a complete disaster.
But I'd like to get the former National Security Adviser in a room with
victims of chemical weapons in Iraq and Iran, victims of the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait, victims of a decade of sanctions in Iraq, victims of
the Lebanese civil war, etc., (not to neglect the victims of the
terrorism that has spun out of Saudi Arabia) and then have him tell us
that 50 years of autocracy in the Middle East and Persian Gulf have
given us 50 years of peace.
It's hard to make this indictment of Bush League foreign policy sound
credible to the kind of audience you most need to appeal to when garbage
like that comes out of his mouth.
Posted by: Michael Roston at October 23, 2005 05:23 PM
"The neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently for
the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by violence
if that is required," Scowcroft said.
Wrong. Democracy is the last thing on the neocon agenda. They would be
horrified at the prospect of a living, breathing democracy in Iraq or
anywhere else. You don't see the neocons cheering on the grassroots
democratic movement in Bolivia or Venezuela.
What they want is compliant goverments in energy-rich third world
nations that will do the bidding of corporate America.
Posted by: owl at October 23, 2005 05:24 PM
Thanks for the infusion of some frigging COMMON SENSE, owl. Why in the
world does anybody still take these 'democracy-loving' cranks at their
word??
Posted by: shep at October 23, 2005 05:29 PM
I've noticed that the traditional republicans engage in open dialogue
with the neocons; yet Scowcroft reveals how neocons fail to "listen" to
critical advise, who prefer instead to confine, defend and justify a
foreign policy, based on an idealistic, and therefore, naive
construction for world order.
Yet, I believe it's another "sale" onto the American people. Imo, the
Bush Cabal's true motives for war lie in the fleecing of America's 200
Billion dollar war, ...to date. It's Bush's pro-war cronies, like
Halliburton, who have profited greatly. This underlies the heart of
their justifications, which serves to only fill the larger void of their
conscience.
Posted by: Dom M. at October 23, 2005 05:49 PM
An interesting preview; thanks for posting it. I'll need to buy this
issue ASAP! An early Fitzmas girft to myself.
Posted by: CKT at October 23, 2005 05:52 PM
All of the talk about whether and how we might have succeeded in
transforming Iraq and then the entire Middle East into a Jeffersonian
type democracy I believe clearly indicates that those, who engage in
such discussions do not really understand why we attacked Iraq and they
think that we should be trying to make good on that eleventh hour
justification called "Iraqi freedom." It would seem that this is true of
Mr. Scowcroft too.
Well, sir, we did not go there for any of the reasons Bush and company
have cited. We went there to achieve two primary objectives. The first
involved the NEOCON dream of US world Hegemony beginning with the Middle
East because of its strategic importance and because of the loss of the
counter balance to such dreams, the Soviet union. Make no mistake about
it, these people believe that it is time and that we should seek to
become the modern day Roman Empire because they thought we have the
power to do so and because they believed that the rest of the world
would simply stand by and allow us to do so. This part of the equation
provided the philosophical or the intellectual rationale for attacking a
nation they knew to be no threat to us or to anyone else. The basic
thesis is that, if we do not reach for the staff of empire, then someone
else will rise up in time and do so and then we will be at their mercy.
Their documents starting with those of PNAC make clear their agenda to
achieve such world dominance and then to see to it that no nation or
group of nations can become strong enough to ever rise up and challenge
us. Prior to Bush, Jr., these people were thought to be the "Crazies"
and they were not allowed to gain the power that he allowed them to
achieve. Such was our luck to have this, as one put it, non-moronic,
person as our leader.
The second and even more important and the actual primary reason for our
unprovoked attack on Iraq is the near term peaking of the world's oil
production. How near term? Well, a few experts say maybe twenty years,
others say certainly within ten years and still more of the most
knowledgeable say that, if it has not already occurred, it is as near as
two years.
Why is this important? When the world's oil production peaks, there will
not be enough to meet the demand, which is currently exploding due to
the massive growth of China's and India's and other economies and that
means that the world economies will have to contract, not grow. This is
totally new territory since all of our economies are predicated upon
constant growth. To anticipate recession and even depression and severe
conflict is not at all unreasonable; it is just plain common sense.
The Bush administration, and in particular, Cheney and his secret energy
committee knew very well that we are facing such a dire event and they
also knew that the peaking of the oil production will result in fierce
competition for an ever diminishing supply of oil. Of course, they
realized that it would be impossible to remain the world's sole
superpower without adequate supplies of oil.
They knew, from the input of the oil corporation people with whom they
were meeting, that every known oil field in the world has already peaked
except possibly Saudi Arabia's and they know that there is considerable
evidence that the conditions of those fields also indicate actual and
very near peaking of their production. On top of that, they know that
the oil companies have not been investing capital to look for and
develop new fields because they already know that there are none of
sufficient size to make it economically worthwhile.
So, faced with the sure prospect of a tremendous shock to the economy of
the US, they looked for ways to delay it or to ameliorate it. Unlike
China, for instance, which has been trying to lock up the oil they will
need to keep their economy humming by contracting for oil or by joint
funding of projects to produce more oil, our leaders decided that the
best and certainly the easiest and surer way to assure our access to the
oil we will need was to simply go take control of the world's greatest
known reserves, i.e. Iraq, Iran and indirectly and possibly directly,
Saudi Arabia. So, Mr. Clemons, I submit that we are in Iraq and we would
have attacked Iran before now, if our performance in Iraq had not been
an example of world class incompetence, in order to insure our control
and access to the top three of the world's known oil reserves.
It is [possible that Mr. Scowcroft does not know todays Cheney because
he does not ubderstand how Cheney was the maestro behind the decision to
attack Iraq, for none of the reasons given, but because of the imminence
of "Peak Oil." Had he known this, he might not be bewildered by what
otherwise appears to him to be a major change in the character and
personality of his friend.
Our war in Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or the
establishment of democracy there. It has everything to do with our
militaristic imperialism and our need to insure that we control that
oil. Because this is the case, we do not intend to leave Iraq or the
middle east with our military. Those 14 or so permanent bases we are
building are not for the Iraqis. They are for the troops we will leave
there to insure the security of the oil fields, which it is intended
will be privatized and sold to US corporations.
You might give some thought to the possibility that, with such a
scenario, Bush and company do not want to see a stable and solid
government in Iraq. They only want to see one that we completely control
or one so weak that we can claim that we must remain there indefinitely.
The latter seems to be the real objective, given that there are reports
that we are promoting sectarian violence between the Shiites and the
Sunnis, which, of course will require our continued presence to keep the
lid on.
So many of the people, who support Bush and his atrocious policies and
actions, believe that everything the US does is done for altruistic
reasons because we are always the "Good Guys" of the world. I suspect
that those of us, who recognize a fraud when we see one and do not
support Bush or his policies and actions, are just a little better
educated about the history of our country's actions and motives
concerning our involvement's in other parts of the world. Altruism might
be a good cover for actions which are anything but in their motivation,
but it has had virtually no real application to our actions anywhere
and, in particular, in the Middle East.
The article by Ms. Cohn, "Bush's Twin Masters", from
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/092605A.shtml, is a pretty good
overview of the history of our interjecting ourselves into the Middle
East national and political scene and, as you can readily see, we have
not acted there in any way but what we saw as to our advantage. In the
process, we demonstrated no reluctance at all to create conflict and
war, not withstanding the hundreds of thousands who would die because of
our actions, just so long as we saw it to be to our advantage. You might
also note how our interest there has always been because of the fact
that most of the world's oil is to be found there in the two countries
in which we have exercised influence the most.
Ms. Cohn's assertion that the two driving forces behind our current
attack on Iraq derive from the ideology of the NEOCON dream of US world
Hegemony, which is clearly defined in the documents that she cites, and
from the irrational belief among the far right wing religious supporters
of Bush that Armageddon is upon us and the end times war in the Middle
East that will usher in the return of Christ must now be played out
between the Israelis and the surrounding Muslims is quite correct.
However, I believe the influence of the irrational among the Christians
only extends to the support they provided to elect and reelect Bush and
not to our actual foreign policy. In other words, it is just another
case of the Republican politicians using the religious people of this
country without ever intending to actually carry out their desired
policies; they have been Reaganized again. In this case, I say thank
goodness that the decision makers are not true believers in the
Armageddon silliness.
Although Ms. Cohn does cite the influence, both historically and
currently, of oil as being an important element of our foreign policy, I
do not believe she understands just how central that issue really is. If
she did, I believe she would have discussed the criticality of the near
term peaking of the world's oil supply and why that makes her
identification of the "Smoking Gun" from Cheney's energy committee
meetings such a killer expose. We have had any number of pieces of
evidence to support our contention that the real reason this country
attacked Iraq was because of the imminence of "Peak OiI" and the belief
on the part of Bush, Cheney and those ruling Oil Barons that we had to
gain control of what oil there is in order to insure that no one else
does so and to insure that our economy will be protected, at least for
some time, from the disastrous effects that insufficient oil will have.
The people in those meetings knew only too well that the world's oil
production is soon to peak and they knew only too well that they were
not expending large amounts of capital to look for and develop new oil
fields because they already know that none of any size are to be found.
I have had some people, who believe in the unbelievable and who support
Bush as a result, look at the evidence we have to support our claim and
reject it because it does not include an actual admission or some other
form of "Smoking Gun" to establish that, yes, we attacked Iraq in order
to take control of their oil and not because of any of the ever changing
reasons Bush and company have put forth. For Ms. Cohn to report the
following about what we now have from Cheney's energy group is for her
to hand us the "Holy Grail" of "Smoking Guns" that clearly establishes
why we went to Iraq. I offer my deepest thanks to her for the following
work:
"In July 2003, the public interest group Judicial Watch finally secured
some of the documents from Cheney's energy task force meetings. They
contain the smoking gun: "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines,
refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and
gas projects" and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The
documents are dated March 2001, two years before Bush invaded Iraq."
So, now we have it that we were preparing two years in advance of our
unprovoked attack on Iraq to go there and take control of their oil and
we also have it that the first and only security we provided during the
initial fighting in Iraq was for the oil fields and the Oil
Ministry buildings. Everything else that might have been central to the
establishment of a working democracy there was allowed to be destroyed
and carted away by looters. There can be no clearer evidence other than
actual admissions and, if you don't mind, I will not hold my breath
waiting for them, to show that we attacked this country in the role of
the world's greatest of "Robber Barons."
You might keep in mind the fact that we are there to control not just
Iraq's oil, but Iran's too, if we can, when you hear or engage in all
this talk about when the US is going to leave Iraq. If we leave, we do
not achieve the goal of the control of the oil. Therefore, do not hold
your breath for our actual leaving Iraq. Those permanent bases we are
building are not for the Iraqis. They are for the troops we will hold
there to insure that we do control the oil and that US corporations that
will gain ownership of those oil fields will be protected. That is the
way of all imperialism and there is no greater militaristic and
imperialistic nation in the world today than America.
For those who would label me just another of the America hating
liberals, I say to you wake up, face facts, look yourself in the mirror
and see if you like what you see in the light of what is being done in
your name around the world. I do not hate my country. I served it for 22
years as a USAF Officer. However, I will not ignore it when the people
who are running its affairs exhibit an ideology and impose policies and
actions that are the very antithesis of what our country is supposed to
be all about.
The days when the rest of the world could look to America as a shining
beacon on the hill of what a society and culture that was aimed at doing
all that could be done to insure the integrity, the security, the
opportunity, happiness and the well being of the individual at the
expense of the powerful and the ruling classes have been steadily
disappearing for some 35 to 40 years during which a conservative
Republican takeover of our nation has been proceeding. No, I don't hate
my country. I just oppose those who would ruin it and, for those who are
offended by my criticism, I say to you, " Well then, see to it that you
and those you support, do not establish policy and take actions that are
so deserving of such criticism." If you do, I will be only too happy to
applaud rather than to criticize and you would be doing both yourself
and your self image and your nation a real favor.
Posted by: Thomas H. Baumgartner at October 23, 2005 05:57 PM
I hate to rain on your parade. but believing much of what Mr Scowcroft
has to say will only end in disappointment. He was never very competent
at his job. He was General Al Haig's apparatchik for years here in DC,
then fancied himself GHWB's 'eminence gris' until he was put out to
pasture. In point of fact, his 'best friend' found his marked
anti-Israeli views embarrassing, tinged as they were by private
anti-Semitism, and, moreover, Scowcroft's early sponsorship of Miss
Rice's Washington career (among others) soon turned to envy and spite,
as these quotes sadly illustrate. By all means believe that the Iraq war
was a mistake if that is your opinion, but seeking validation for it
from Scowcroft will ultimately prove embarrassing--as does employing the
term 'neo-conservative' at all, since it was coined by Pat Buchanan. In
point of fact, Wolfowitz is in no way conservative, as any employee at
the World Bank will tell you; not only does he hold 'liberal' social
views and read Arabic, he is engaged to a woman who is a former Saudi
citizen.
Posted by: Kierkegaard at October 23, 2005 06:12 PM
Ahh. Kierkegaard. I knew it wouldn't take very long for the swiftboating
of Brent Scowcroft to begin.
As with many others, you're confusing Scowcroft's ability to separate
American and Israeli interests in his thinking with "anti-Semitism".
That crap just ain't gonna cut it anymore, after the full story of how
we were misled into Iraq comes out.
But nice try!
Posted by: Swiftboat Captain at October 23, 2005 06:31 PM
50 years of peace in the Middle East? As I recall there were spats in
1956, 1967 & 1973 not to mention the contretemps between Iraq & Iran.
Things got testy in Yemen and Lebanon now and then...
Posted by: wilson46201 at October 23, 2005 06:32 PM
The Bush cartel has been a criminal institution since day 1. They are in
Iraq for the reasons cited above, q.v., to secure and procure the oil
fields there; and to assist their coporate friends with lucrative
profits from an extended War. The War in Iraq is illegal; the American
people were lied to about the resasons to go to War, and the Bush
administration and their entire cabal should be held responsible for the
War crimes committed there. The damage they have done to the reputation
of the United States will take decades to undo - if at all.
Until those who lied this country into War are held accountable, these
neo-facists in Washington will continue to subvert American democracy,
encourage facism in a corporate run America, and probably take this
country into a major War before it is over with.
With the upcoming indictments of Rove et al. for lying about Iraq we can
only hope that Fitzgerald has Cheney in his sites. For us simple minded
Americans we see Rice, Cheney and the like as the most criminal
adminstrative personnel to walk the stage of American history. They are
all lying scum, and should be impeached and frog-marched before an
international tribunal for "Crimes against Humanity". The GOP has
trashed the American dream; and until the people of this great country
wake up to reality they will continue to do so.
Posted by: Montiel at October 23, 2005 06:36 PM
I have one comment about Mr. Baumgartner's interesting comments: we need
to believe the evidence of our eyes and our reason and accept that the
Bush administration does not WANT iraq to become stable and peaceful.
When you see that all of the actions taken in Iraq are logical if you
assume that civil war or continued unrest are the goal, and illogical
otherwise, its time to face facts. These guys don't want peace.
Posted by: marky at October 23, 2005 06:55 PM
There is one reason and the only one reason why Bush II invaded Iraq:
Israel.
Sure, I will be called anti-semi and names like that but the hidden and
silent reason as to why we decided to invade Iraq is there for all to
see if you are willing to see through the smokes and fires and the
burning bodies of our brave soldiers.
There is no democracy in Mid-East and the bush people know it but it is
great marketing tool to get Americans to buy into the fradulent war.
You have to give Rove credit for hiring great PR firms to come up with
mesmorizing imagineries, eloquent speeches, memorable quotes like "we
fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight terrarists here". Just great.
I think General Scowcroft knew it but he could not talk about it except
saying that Bush II was basically a sharon's little dog. No, Scowcroft
did not exactly said that, my translation anyway.
Posted by: bob at October 23, 2005 07:13 PM
Here is what Scowcroft said about Bush II :
"Brent Scowcroft, a mentor to the current national security adviser,
Condoleezza Rice, also said in an interview published in England that
Bush is inordinately influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
"Sharon just has him wrapped around his little finger," Scowcroft told
London's Financial Times. "I think the president is mesmerized."
I think my translation is pretty close. Bush II is basically Sharon's
little dog.
Posted by: bob at October 23, 2005 07:36 PM
Thank you Steve for bringing this to your readers. It is interesting to
see the difference between a thinking man of age and experience and the
maybe not so thinking people with not so much experience and no respect
for it of the Bush 43 administration.
I believe Thomas H. Baumgartner is adding an exellent aspect to this
discussion.
ulla
Posted by: ulla at October 23, 2005 08:39 PM
"As I recall there were spats in 1956, 1967 & 1973"
Yes, but IIRC, the only Americans killed were the 34 sailors who died at
the hands of the Israelis in '67.
For the U.S. it was relatively peaceful.
Posted by: matt at October 23, 2005 09:11 PM
For the U.S. it was relatively peaceful.
Thanks to wars by proxy, such as the Iraqi invasion of Iran.
I think history will be kind to Scowcroft. Did not go to Baghdad. Didn't
do anything stupid at the end of the Cold War (though there was that
"snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" speech by Nixon).
Posted by: Taylor at October 23, 2005 10:34 PM
"Kierkegaard", perhaps you misunderstood "Repetition, An Essay in
Experimental Psychology". It does not suggest repeating phrases like "In
point of fact" several times to make it sound like you know what you are
talking about.
Posted by: LL at October 23, 2005 10:38 PM
"...Then a barely perceptible note of satisfaction entered his voice,
and he said, "But we've had fifty years of peace."..."
"...Fifty years of peace in the Middle East? I'm sorry, but are we and
Mister Scowcroft living on different planets?..."
Mr Rosten, great point and yes, we are on a different planet than Mr.
Scowcroft. The "we" who have enjoyed 50 years of peace are the upper
crust citizens of the good old USA, while those who have suffered and
died in the Middle East, whether in Kuwait, Iraq, Palestine, Iarael or
Khobar Towers are meaningless in their schemes, and therefore worthless.
Culture of life? You betcha, but whose life??
Gramma
Posted by: Gramma at October 23, 2005 11:29 PM
Steve, you should check in with your Iranian friends and see what is on
Iranian radio these days. I think you will find some very interesting
things. I don't have anything too specific in mind, but I have an
Iranian friend who updates me on his favorite shows, and it sounds
fascinating. Lots of discussion of Iraq, of course, and he heard a show
about Ledeen recently. But what really shocked me is that he said there
are 2 or 3 shows on radio or TV which are produced in Iran which are
virulently anti-Islam. They don't have any other religious viewpoint,
but apparently they are long rants about how Islam is bullshit and has
led the Iranian people astray. Sounds worth checking out.
Posted by: marky at October 23, 2005 11:55 PM
Scowcroft speaks: "I don't like the term 'exit strategy' -- but what do
you do with Iraq once you own it?"
Well,duh, you privatise it, turn it over to Haliburton et al.
Much truth to the motto: Dulce et decorum est pro Halliburton mori.
Posted by: degustibus at October 24, 2005 12:22 AM
Not that it matters, because the overall tenor of the post is so lame
and transparent, but "Kierkegaard"s assertion that Pat Buchanan, of all
people, coined the term Neo-Conservative is flat-out false. It's hard to
imagine how he could be more wrong, since "neo-conservative" was first
brought into the political lexicon by the leftwing author and critic,
Michael Harrington back in the '70s.
Posted by: brucds at October 24, 2005 12:24 AM
I remember with great patriotic pride, during the build-up to free Iraq,
the President, and his men and women, telling the American People how
Our Nation's destiny was to spread Democracy to the world starting with
the overthrow of the evil dictator Saddam. And the People rallied around
this noblest cause of giving the gift of Freedom and Democracy beginning
with Iraq. God Bless America, and We Shall Prevail.
How could anyone think our government has War Criminals in its midst
during this glorious struggle for worldwide democracy, and act as if
they were deceived into an unnecessary, illegal, and immoral war started
under false pretenses. Democracy and Freedom are NOT false pretenses,
they are true blue American ideals. Real Americans have no problem with
sharing Democracy and Freedom with others. God Bless America!
And remember, Freedom is God's gift to humankind, and it is for US to be
God's archangel upon this earth.
You can't argue against Freedom and Democracy for others NOW without
being in the thrall of weak kneed appeasement. Everything changed after
9/11 and you are either with the People, who gave their blessing, during
the run-up to the Iraq Liberation, to this new world crusade, or you are
against Our People's fervent desire, and your Nation's calling. God
Bless America!
Pray for Our Leaders in this tumultuos time.
Posted by: Bill Blasingame at October 24, 2005 12:28 AM
That Bushian Warfare Cult that rules over Washington has criminally
overextended the professional military to the breaking point and has
gratuitously damaged our reputation overseas for at least a generation.
If that is not treasonous behavior, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Collin Baber at October 24, 2005 12:36 AM
HOW DID WE GET IN THIS MESS - U-ALL - ?
from the
( Re-Written) DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE
by RogerART.com
First Published in Feb, 2001
.
To PROVE that MILLIONAIRES, in disproportionate numbers to the US
Population,
have Monopolized and bought the Government…
Compare the numbers below.
Approximately 286 million people make up the American Population.
280 MILLION PEOPLE have LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
6 MILLION PEOPLE have MORE THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
Yet in the bush family government most are MULTIMILLIONAIRES.
Comparing these numbers is proof and confirms that
Millionaires Overwhelm, WE the PEOPLE, in the Executive, Judicial and
Legislative branches of Government
And this is criminal.
BUSH is a MULTI-MILLIONAIRE and part of a MULTI-MILLION Dollar Family
Political Business
CHENEY is a MULTI-MILLIONAIRE and OIL WAR PROFITEER with serious energy
conflict of interests
MOST ALL of the bush CABINET and APPOINTEES are MULTI-MILLIONAIRES
6 of the 9 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES are MILLIONAIRES
MORE THAN 100 people in the HOUSE and SENATE are MILLIONAIRES
The Numbers above Confirm that there is a Conspiracy in America Today.
Treason has Occurred
and
the FIX is in…
.
Continued at
Thank U, RogerART.com
Posted by: Roger Drowne EC at October 24, 2005 12:58 AM
.
WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS
.
IT BECOMES NECESSARY for the PEOPLE of the United States
TO ALTER or ABOLISH the United States Government
as it exists in the year…
2001 / 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 / 06
.
Using the Authority, Law, and Intentions of the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence.
.
And Now the People Step Forward
and Charge High Treason,
and Show that Democracy in its roots today,
.
Is Corrupt.
.
And that the Constitution has been Altered and Betrayed
in Favor of…
A Small Group of Millionaires,
.
Over Another..
.
the Governed,
.
the People of the United States.
.
And that the Election Process is UN-fair
and has been Overwhelmed
and Monopolized
by Millionaires
and their millions of dollars
.
BU$H = TREASON … Continued at…
SEE on left… LINK ( 2 ) to
( Re-Written ) Declaration of Independence
.
ALSO... SEE ALL ( these words in )
15 + PAINTINGS at…
http://www.rogerart.com/20_PATRIOT%20DEMOCRACY.htm .
.
.
Thank U, RogerART.com
.
Posted by: Roger Drowne EC at October 24, 2005 01:04 AM
Mr. Baumgartner's analysis is interesting and I happen to agree with a
lot of what he says above.
There are few points I would like to add to his analysis (and other's)
analysis along the oil control theory.
How is it that controlling these resources improve the security of the
US if we do not make efforts to improve the efficient use of this
resource? Basically, if it is true that we are seeking to control
significant portions of the world's oil resources, while at the same
time *not* working hard on increasing efficiency, isn't the US then
defacto ceding the lead in the efficient use of oil energy to other
nations, nations who have a huge economic incentive to improve oil
efficiency or oil independent energy technologies?
Note that I do believe that some folks in the administration and
certainly a not insignificant portion of the American people somehow
continue to believe that what is going on in Iraq will somehow benefit
the Iraqi people and make some positive impact on the Middle East. Some
of them even believe that we are somehow fighting terrorists there and
an even smaller percentage even think that this may actually come about
or succeed. Sadly, they are sending their sons and daughters to die for
a policy that they do not fully grasp, nor do they fully appreciate the
consequences of, giving the incompetence and greed behind what is
obviously a grab for Iraq's oil fields.
Sadly, angrily, I believe that our country is completely on the wrong
track in its official economic and foreign policy. The debate in both
those policy arenas has been tainted by the Bush cronyists. They have
corrupted any clear, rational policy in both areas for personal gain via
one-upsmanshipping macho yahooism. I'm sick of it and I hope they end up
in front of war crimes tribunals...or, short of that, that they end up
in the US Federal prison system, where a small microcosm of the
injustices that they have visited on the rest of the world may be
visited upon them. That having been said, I will still continue to
support improving conditions in the US Federal Prison System.
--Parrot
Posted by: parrot at October 24, 2005 01:17 AM
Baumgartner's got it spot on. Thanks for the nice read. Dumbya and the
neo con artists aren't the least bit concerned with promoting democracy.
Give me a break, they do everything possible to avoid counting votes
here, for God's sake. Dumbya is threatening his first veto over the
Geneva conventions, you think he cares about human rights? If you think
this guy is interested in democracy, I've got some property in New
Orleans for you.
"Democracy" is simply an after-thought winner of the "Justify the War
Contest," after the failure to find WMDs, and the failure to link Bin Laden.
Conquest of the oil reserves is consistent with historical fighting over
limited resources, nobody should be surprised about that. What's
surprising is the level of in-your-face hypocracy of these chickenhawks.
The ineptitude is no surprise, but I expected them to be a little more
discrete about stealing. They have no shame.
I guess some people like to be lied to, as long is it isn't about sex.
Posted by: DumbDumberDumbya at October 24, 2005 01:45 AM
Scowcroft's 50 year's of peace in the middle east obviously referred to
America's peace - a time without warfare and loss of American soldiers
in battle.
Posted by: Larry at October 24, 2005 02:21 AM
Blasingame: Great parody! I mean, damn, that's almost how those
patriotnuts think.
Posted by: shep at October 24, 2005 02:24 AM
It is becoming increasingly clear that the vast majority of oppenents to
bringing Democracy to Iraq are in fact just finding an alternative route
to express their inherent anti-Semitism through criticism of Operation
Iraqi Freedom, which yes, Israel, and it’s proud supporters in America,
do enthusiastically support. One can see a similar pogrom starting with
the Bush Administrations brave attempts to affect regime change in
Syria, where a neo-nazi government is continuing to threaten the Jewish
homeland. Others bash the Jooos by calling for the West Bank and the
Golan Heights to be “returned” to the Arabs. It amazes me that in the
year 2005 that so much anti-Semitism can still be spouted in public
without the slightest condemnation.
Posted by: witz at October 24, 2005 03:29 AM