97silverlsc
Dedicated LVC Member
Character Counts: A Republican's Reflections
by William Frey, M.D. (RepublicansForHumility.com)
September, 2004
"I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you....So I'm not exactly sure where the Vice President is coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, powerful force, much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans. But maybe I misunderstand where you're coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course."
-- George W. Bush, Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate, Oct. 11, 2000
"We have no territorial ambitions, we don't seek an empire."
-- President George W. Bush, Nov. 11, 2002
"...we have no interest in occupation."
-- President George W. Bush, May 24, 2004
Has the President been honest with the American people? Has he pursued foreign policy consistent with the values he expressed as a candidate and with the rhetoric he continues to use today? I consider these questions with a heavy heart, as a conservative, a Republican, an ardent supporter of this President in both the 2000 election, and during the subsequent attempts by Democrats to overturn his victory, an admirer of his resolute leadership following September 11, a supporter of our invasion of Afghanistan, and, after painstaking consideration of the Administration's assertions regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, a convert to the cause of invading Iraq. Why then, now question the President's veracity? Since the fall of Baghdad, the Administration has consistently pursued occupation policies contradictory to both spirit and specifics of the foreign policy clearly elucidated by the Presidential candidate for whom I voted. These policies are inconsistent with the vision the President espoused when soliciting support from the American people and Congress for the invasion of Iraq, and contrary to rhetoric he continues to use today.
Presidential candidate Bush described, repeatedly and explicitly, the foreign policy he would pursue: He would not pursue "nation building". He would lower military expenditures. He repeatedly stated our troops were over-deployed and over-extended in too many areas around the world. America should be "humble", helping people help themselves.
"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble."
-- George W. Bush, Second Presidential Debate, October 11, 2000
He would use troops only in these circumstances: It must be in our vital national interest. The mission must be clear. The force must be sufficient to accomplish the mission. The "exit strategy" must be well-defined. He specifically opposed changing the purpose of a mission to a goal of "nation building". The principles he advocated as a candidate are irreconcilable with a war for the humanitarian purpose of "establishing democracy", with prolonged deployment of troops for "nation building", or with permanent occupation without a planned exit.
While in office, President Bush continued to rhetorically oppose nation building, and has repeatedly denied goals of territory, empire, domination, or occupation.
"...captive people have greeted American soldiers as liberators. And there is good reason. We have no territorial ambitions, we don't seek an empire."
-- President George W. Bush, November 11, 2002
"We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire."
-- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004
The purpose of the invasion of Iraq was portrayed, while soliciting the support of the American people, the Congress, and the United Nations, as the disarming of Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. Addressing the issue of how long our troops would be in Iraq, President Bush told the nation,
"We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people. I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done."
-- President George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 19, 2003
As with his prior statements as a candidate, the President's rationale and statements in office are inconsistent with permanent occupation, inconsistent with the results of his policies, inconsistent with the increasingly certain expectation of, and preparation for, a permanent non-consensual (for the great majority of Iraqis), contested military presence which is the emerging surety of our post-invasion policies.
It is also clear that concurrently with his public expression of non-interventionist and anti-empire rhetoric, President Bush appointed key advisers who for years have strongly advocated a foreign policy ideology far different from his rhetoric, an ideology which is best characterized as one of total world domination by the United States, specifically including the following elements:
* prevention of any nation, ally or foe, from achieving a level of power that could threaten American dominance,
* massive expansion, rather than contraction, of American bases and deployments around world, specifically including an
* American unilateral military action, expanded permanent military presence in the Middle East,
* preemptive wars,
* massive increase in military expenditures,
* "regime change" not only in Iraq, but in Syria, Iran, North Korea, and China,
* embracing, rather than rejecting, the concepts of empire, Pax Americana, American hegemony.
Unlike the President's rhetoric, which reflects traditional American values, this ideology of global domination, preemptive warfare, and empire is a significant departure from 228 years of American policy, from American moral values, from Christian "just war" theory dating from Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century, and from accepted principles of international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Military actions which are appropriate and just in the presence of clear defensive necessity, assume an altered moral significance and gravity when a nation, motivated by an ideology of global dominance, takes preemptive military action which that nation justifies by "intelligence" later found to be flawed.
How has the conflict between the President's rhetoric and his advisers' ideology been resolved? The President's rhetoric has been, and remains, consistent with traditional conservatism. The Administration's decisions and actions, however, have consistently favored the aggressively hawkish "neoconservative" positions long advocated by key advisers. In the words of Richard Perle, considered a leading neoconservative architect of the Administration's hawkish foreign policy,
"The President of the United States, on issue after issue, has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives."
--Richard Perle
"But didn't September 11 'change everything'?"
It is now clear that September 11 was not the cause of the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary and National Security Council member Paul O'Neill reports plans for a post-Saddam Iraq were literally on the table within 10 days of inauguration, 8 months before 9-11.
Within days of September 11, the early deliberations concerned attacking Iraq, even as all intelligence indicated the events of September 11 was orchestrated by Al Qaeda, sanctuaried in Afghanistan, who, as Islamic fundamentalists, considered the secular Iraqis to be apostate.
The President prevailed upon a majority of Americans, myself included, to support the invasion only after a massive public relations campaign relentlessly repeating charges of Iraq's WMD's, charges that have not been substantiated by post-invasion findings.
Evidence is overwhelming that the President, immediately upon assuming office and prior to the events of September 11, embarked on a foreign policy directly contrary to the stated positions on which he had campaigned. It is clear that the pursuit of this foreign policy included the misrepresentation of convenient, speculative intelligence, some of which was known at that time to be flawed.
Most significant, the Administration continues to misrepresent its intent for a permanent military presence in Iraq, as well as expansive plans for Syria and Iran, and the consequences of continuing to pursue this course.
This is a fundamental dishonesty, involving the most important functions of the Presidency.
"But, given the realities of September 11, aren't the President's policies justified, even if pursued by deceptive means?"
To consider this, we must reflect on whether a foreign policy based upon a concept of global domination is one which Americans truly desire, whether or not it is consistent with our core values, whether such a policy would increase or decrease the threat of terrorism, and whether such policies will increase or diminish our liberties.
This civic dialogue is impeded when the Administration denies basic aspects of its ideology, when it continues to hinder public debate about the preeminent issues in foreign policy by obscuring and denying its real intent, by hiding behind a rhetoric that continues to claim that the "occupation has ended", that we "only seek the liberation of the Iraqi people", that Iraq has been given "full sovereignty", that "our troops will be coming home as soon as they have completed their mission", that we have an "exit strategy", that we have "no interest in occupation, territory or empire", when our actions consistently show otherwise.
Civic discourse is not well served when the political alternatives are characterized by partisan media (whether cable news or talk radio) as a bipolar choice between supporting either imprudent militarism, on the one hand, or anti-American leftist anticapitalism, on the other. Being a patriotic conservative should not be equated with being a militaristic hawk in favor of global domination. Nor should it be assumed that aggressive unilateral policies will necessarily maximize our safety and liberty.
"But, isn't it the conservative position to support the war?"
"... if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that."
-- George W. Bush, first Gore-Bush Presidential debate, October 3, 2000
President Bush was elected as a conservative who supported focused military defense and opposed interventionist exploits to impose our ideas on around the world. This position was supported by both the majority of the American people and by Republicans and conservatives in Congress.
A minority of conservatives opposed the invasion of Iraq at that time, and many who did support the invasion are reconsidering their support for the occupation, although one would not learn this from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Significant reservations are held by some noteworthy Republican conservative officeholders, although pressure on active officeholder to conform to the party line is intense.
Significant numbers of retired military officers, experienced in combat, and uninhibited in retirement to speak, have been prominent in expressing reservations.
Most conservatives, like most Americans, value liberty for themselves and others, are averse to policies of domination, favor the judicious use of military force when necessary and justified, respect the value of human life, and are averse to human casualties, whether our own forces or Iraqi "collateral damage". Wisdom and strength are not mutually exclusive.
Conservative support for national defense and for overthrowing a tyrant does not equate with support for a perpetual bloody occupation of a foreign land, against the desires of the inhabitants, even if done in the name of "establishing democracy". If the President elects to make his Iraq policies the key issue of this campaign, and attempts to equate support for his policies with patriotism and opposition to terrorism, it would presumptuous for him to contend that in so doing he is truly running as a conservative.
"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, it is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
by William Frey, M.D. (RepublicansForHumility.com)
September, 2004
"I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you....So I'm not exactly sure where the Vice President is coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, powerful force, much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans. But maybe I misunderstand where you're coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course."
-- George W. Bush, Second Gore-Bush Presidential Debate, Oct. 11, 2000
"We have no territorial ambitions, we don't seek an empire."
-- President George W. Bush, Nov. 11, 2002
"...we have no interest in occupation."
-- President George W. Bush, May 24, 2004
Has the President been honest with the American people? Has he pursued foreign policy consistent with the values he expressed as a candidate and with the rhetoric he continues to use today? I consider these questions with a heavy heart, as a conservative, a Republican, an ardent supporter of this President in both the 2000 election, and during the subsequent attempts by Democrats to overturn his victory, an admirer of his resolute leadership following September 11, a supporter of our invasion of Afghanistan, and, after painstaking consideration of the Administration's assertions regarding Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, a convert to the cause of invading Iraq. Why then, now question the President's veracity? Since the fall of Baghdad, the Administration has consistently pursued occupation policies contradictory to both spirit and specifics of the foreign policy clearly elucidated by the Presidential candidate for whom I voted. These policies are inconsistent with the vision the President espoused when soliciting support from the American people and Congress for the invasion of Iraq, and contrary to rhetoric he continues to use today.
Presidential candidate Bush described, repeatedly and explicitly, the foreign policy he would pursue: He would not pursue "nation building". He would lower military expenditures. He repeatedly stated our troops were over-deployed and over-extended in too many areas around the world. America should be "humble", helping people help themselves.
"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble."
-- George W. Bush, Second Presidential Debate, October 11, 2000
He would use troops only in these circumstances: It must be in our vital national interest. The mission must be clear. The force must be sufficient to accomplish the mission. The "exit strategy" must be well-defined. He specifically opposed changing the purpose of a mission to a goal of "nation building". The principles he advocated as a candidate are irreconcilable with a war for the humanitarian purpose of "establishing democracy", with prolonged deployment of troops for "nation building", or with permanent occupation without a planned exit.
While in office, President Bush continued to rhetorically oppose nation building, and has repeatedly denied goals of territory, empire, domination, or occupation.
"...captive people have greeted American soldiers as liberators. And there is good reason. We have no territorial ambitions, we don't seek an empire."
-- President George W. Bush, November 11, 2002
"We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire."
-- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004
The purpose of the invasion of Iraq was portrayed, while soliciting the support of the American people, the Congress, and the United Nations, as the disarming of Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. Addressing the issue of how long our troops would be in Iraq, President Bush told the nation,
"We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people. I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done."
-- President George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 19, 2003
As with his prior statements as a candidate, the President's rationale and statements in office are inconsistent with permanent occupation, inconsistent with the results of his policies, inconsistent with the increasingly certain expectation of, and preparation for, a permanent non-consensual (for the great majority of Iraqis), contested military presence which is the emerging surety of our post-invasion policies.
It is also clear that concurrently with his public expression of non-interventionist and anti-empire rhetoric, President Bush appointed key advisers who for years have strongly advocated a foreign policy ideology far different from his rhetoric, an ideology which is best characterized as one of total world domination by the United States, specifically including the following elements:
* prevention of any nation, ally or foe, from achieving a level of power that could threaten American dominance,
* massive expansion, rather than contraction, of American bases and deployments around world, specifically including an
* American unilateral military action, expanded permanent military presence in the Middle East,
* preemptive wars,
* massive increase in military expenditures,
* "regime change" not only in Iraq, but in Syria, Iran, North Korea, and China,
* embracing, rather than rejecting, the concepts of empire, Pax Americana, American hegemony.
Unlike the President's rhetoric, which reflects traditional American values, this ideology of global domination, preemptive warfare, and empire is a significant departure from 228 years of American policy, from American moral values, from Christian "just war" theory dating from Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century, and from accepted principles of international relations since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Military actions which are appropriate and just in the presence of clear defensive necessity, assume an altered moral significance and gravity when a nation, motivated by an ideology of global dominance, takes preemptive military action which that nation justifies by "intelligence" later found to be flawed.
How has the conflict between the President's rhetoric and his advisers' ideology been resolved? The President's rhetoric has been, and remains, consistent with traditional conservatism. The Administration's decisions and actions, however, have consistently favored the aggressively hawkish "neoconservative" positions long advocated by key advisers. In the words of Richard Perle, considered a leading neoconservative architect of the Administration's hawkish foreign policy,
"The President of the United States, on issue after issue, has reflected the thinking of neoconservatives."
--Richard Perle
"But didn't September 11 'change everything'?"
It is now clear that September 11 was not the cause of the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary and National Security Council member Paul O'Neill reports plans for a post-Saddam Iraq were literally on the table within 10 days of inauguration, 8 months before 9-11.
Within days of September 11, the early deliberations concerned attacking Iraq, even as all intelligence indicated the events of September 11 was orchestrated by Al Qaeda, sanctuaried in Afghanistan, who, as Islamic fundamentalists, considered the secular Iraqis to be apostate.
The President prevailed upon a majority of Americans, myself included, to support the invasion only after a massive public relations campaign relentlessly repeating charges of Iraq's WMD's, charges that have not been substantiated by post-invasion findings.
Evidence is overwhelming that the President, immediately upon assuming office and prior to the events of September 11, embarked on a foreign policy directly contrary to the stated positions on which he had campaigned. It is clear that the pursuit of this foreign policy included the misrepresentation of convenient, speculative intelligence, some of which was known at that time to be flawed.
Most significant, the Administration continues to misrepresent its intent for a permanent military presence in Iraq, as well as expansive plans for Syria and Iran, and the consequences of continuing to pursue this course.
This is a fundamental dishonesty, involving the most important functions of the Presidency.
"But, given the realities of September 11, aren't the President's policies justified, even if pursued by deceptive means?"
To consider this, we must reflect on whether a foreign policy based upon a concept of global domination is one which Americans truly desire, whether or not it is consistent with our core values, whether such a policy would increase or decrease the threat of terrorism, and whether such policies will increase or diminish our liberties.
This civic dialogue is impeded when the Administration denies basic aspects of its ideology, when it continues to hinder public debate about the preeminent issues in foreign policy by obscuring and denying its real intent, by hiding behind a rhetoric that continues to claim that the "occupation has ended", that we "only seek the liberation of the Iraqi people", that Iraq has been given "full sovereignty", that "our troops will be coming home as soon as they have completed their mission", that we have an "exit strategy", that we have "no interest in occupation, territory or empire", when our actions consistently show otherwise.
Civic discourse is not well served when the political alternatives are characterized by partisan media (whether cable news or talk radio) as a bipolar choice between supporting either imprudent militarism, on the one hand, or anti-American leftist anticapitalism, on the other. Being a patriotic conservative should not be equated with being a militaristic hawk in favor of global domination. Nor should it be assumed that aggressive unilateral policies will necessarily maximize our safety and liberty.
"But, isn't it the conservative position to support the war?"
"... if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that."
-- George W. Bush, first Gore-Bush Presidential debate, October 3, 2000
President Bush was elected as a conservative who supported focused military defense and opposed interventionist exploits to impose our ideas on around the world. This position was supported by both the majority of the American people and by Republicans and conservatives in Congress.
A minority of conservatives opposed the invasion of Iraq at that time, and many who did support the invasion are reconsidering their support for the occupation, although one would not learn this from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Significant reservations are held by some noteworthy Republican conservative officeholders, although pressure on active officeholder to conform to the party line is intense.
Significant numbers of retired military officers, experienced in combat, and uninhibited in retirement to speak, have been prominent in expressing reservations.
Most conservatives, like most Americans, value liberty for themselves and others, are averse to policies of domination, favor the judicious use of military force when necessary and justified, respect the value of human life, and are averse to human casualties, whether our own forces or Iraqi "collateral damage". Wisdom and strength are not mutually exclusive.
Conservative support for national defense and for overthrowing a tyrant does not equate with support for a perpetual bloody occupation of a foreign land, against the desires of the inhabitants, even if done in the name of "establishing democracy". If the President elects to make his Iraq policies the key issue of this campaign, and attempts to equate support for his policies with patriotism and opposition to terrorism, it would presumptuous for him to contend that in so doing he is truly running as a conservative.
"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, it is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
-- Theodore Roosevelt