Crackpot Realism
Gandalf Grey
Not since the early days of the Reagan era has the stewardship of a
dangerous world been left in such unsteady hands.
Crackpot 'Realists' Show They're in Charge
by Joe Conason
The most dangerous myth about the Bush administration is that its foreign
policy is guided by competent (if not compassionate) conservatives, whose
outlook reflects experience and whose belligerence equals realism. The
unsettling truth is that the members of the dominant faction around George
W. Bush are, like him, stumblers frozen in a bygone era. The experience
of
the past tumultuous decade has taught them little, and the only "realism"
of
which they seem capable is of the variety that C. Wright Mills memorably
called "crackpot."
With their hostility to arms control and their contempt for international
institutions and treaties, members of the Bush team (or, more precisely,
the
Cheney team) are fashioning a policy which deserves to be called "national
insecurity." They are recreating the Cold War without Communism. And the
only departure from the neo-isolationism which deforms their thinking is
on
questions of trade and commerce, where American interests will eventually
and inevitably suffer from their penchant for irrational action.
The latest and most troubling evidence of incompetence in the White House
arrived about two weeks ago. That was when the first reports leaked out
about the administration's plan to scale back the aid we provide to the
Russian government for reducing and securing their stockpiles of nuclear
armaments and weapons-grade plutonium. On March 18, The Washington Post
reported that Bush budget-cutters intended to cut next year's appropriations
of nuclear-safety assistance for Russia by 12 percent from this year's
level, and by 30 percent below the amount proposed by the Clinton
administration. The amounts in question are comparatively trivial-less than
$500 million in a total annual outlay of $1.9 trillion-but the idiocy is
gargantuan.
For reasons known only to the Post management, this scary scoop was buried
on page A23 of the Sunday paper. It still generated sufficient uproar among
sane members of Congress that, on March 29, the President announced he had
scheduled Russian nuclear aid for a "full review" by officials of the State,
Defense and Energy departments (as well as the geniuses at the Office of
Management and Budget). "We want to make sure that the money is being spent
in an effective way," he explained at a White House news conference.
That must sound reasonable enough to anyone who doesn't know much, including
Mr. Bush himself. In fact, however, the programs that his advisers will
now
take months to "review"-while tensions with Russia grow worse-have already
been subjected to intensive review by people who know a lot. Among the
knowledgeable is former Senator Howard Baker, a Republican who served as
co-chairman of a bipartisan commission that has been studying those same
programs. Mr. Baker, who happens to be Mr. Bush's choice as this country's
next ambassador to Japan, told members of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on March 28 that he and his colleagues believe the United States
should spend no less than $30 billion on various nuclear-safety programs
in
Russia over the next eight to 10 years. The math is simple enough, even
for
the Bush-Cheney crowd: It's about four times the amount proposed in their
current budget.
By what formula, then, did the administration's super-competent
foreign-policy honchos derive the planned cutback? Just how casually do
these self-styled realists make decisions that impinge so profoundly on
the
nation's future? And why did they suddenly announce that this question
required further "review"?
Someday they may be asked to justify themselves in Congressional testimony
on this subject. Meanwhile, we can only assume that they were overcome with
zeal to slash expenditures so that Mr. Bush can pass his $1.6 trillion tax
cut, and hoped that nobody would notice a measly $400 million cut from
Russian aid.
Not since the early days of the Reagan era-when American officials talked
so
foolishly about a "winnable" nuclear war-has the stewardship of a dangerous
world been left in such unsteady hands. Secretary of State Colin Powell
is
the only ranking official who displays any comprehension of these issues,
and he has been effectively muzzled. His latest defeat was the nomination,
reportedly despite the Secretary's objection, of John R. Bolton as Assistant
Secretary of State for arms control. An extremely hawkish Republican lawyer
and former official in the Reagan and Bush administrations, Mr. Bolton has
little background (and less interest) in promoting arms control.
But he does have the heartfelt support of Senator Jesse Helms, who opened
Mr. Bolton's confirmation hearing by recalling an earlier exchange of
pleasantries with the nominee. "I said at the time, and I meant it, that
John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand in
Armageddon, for what the Bible describes as the final battle between good
and evil in this world. And I meant it then, and I mean it this morning. I
have no qualms about it."
Isn't that a reassuring endorsement?
--
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush, Televised Newsconference
December 18, 2000
Bud Keith
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:LOLy6.120$kp6....@nntp2.onemain.com...
> The New York Observer
>
>
>
>
>
> Not since the early days of the Reagan era has the stewardship of a
> dangerous world been left in such unsteady hands.
Those unsteady hands forced your pal Gorby to back down and caused the USSR
to fall on its ass.But why bother with factual history when you libs revise
it to suit your own purposes