From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You 'Axis of Evil'

97silverlsc

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
953
Reaction score
0
Location
High Bridge, NJ
From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You 'Axis of Evil'
by Frank Rich
The New York Times
Published: July 16, 2006

AS American foreign policy lies in ruins from Pyongyang to Baghdad to Beirut, its epitaph is already being written in Washington. Last week's Time cover, "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy," lays out the conventional wisdom: the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, upended by chaos in Iraq and the nuclear intransigence of North Korea and Iran, is now officially kaput. In its stead, a sadder but more patient White House, under the sway of Condi Rice, is embracing the fine art of multilateral diplomacy and dumping the "bring 'em on" gun-slinging that got the world into this jam.

The only flaw in this narrative — a big one — is that it understates the administration's failure by assuming that President Bush actually had a grand, if misguided, vision in the first place. Would that this were so. But in truth this presidency never had a vision for the world. It instead had an idée fixe about one country, Iraq, and in pursuit of that obsession recklessly harnessed American power to gut-driven improvisation and P.R. strategies, not doctrine. This has not changed, even now.

Only if we remember that the core values of this White House are marketing and political expediency, not principle and substance, can we fully grasp its past errors and, more important, decipher the endgame to come. The Bush era has not been defined by big government or small government but by virtual government. Its enduring shrine will be a hollow Department of Homeland Security that finds more potential terrorist targets in Indiana than in New York.

Like his father, George W. Bush always disdained the vision thing. He rode into office on the heels of a boom, preaching minimalist ambitions reminiscent of the 1920's boom Republicanism of Harding and Coolidge. Mr. Bush's most fervent missions were to cut taxes, pass a placebo patients' bill of rights and institute the education program he sold as No Child Left Behind. His agenda was largely exhausted by the time of his fateful Crawford vacation in August 2001, so he talked vaguely of immigration reform and announced a stem-cell research "compromise." But he failed to seriously lead on either issue, both of which remain subjects of toxic debate today. To appear busy once he returned to Washington after Labor Day, he cooked up a typically alliterative "program" called Communities of Character, a grab bag of "values" initiatives inspired by polling data. That was forgotten after the Qaeda attacks. But the day that changed everything didn't change the fundamental character of the Bush presidency. The so-called doctrine of pre-emption, a repackaging of the long-held Cheney-Rumsfeld post-cold-war mantra of unilateralism, was just another gaudy float in the propaganda parade ginned up to take America to war against a country that did not attack us on 9/11. As the president's chief of staff then, Andrew Card, famously said of the Iraq war just after Labor Day 2002, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." The Bush doctrine was rolled out officially two weeks later, just days after the administration's brass had fanned out en masse on the Sunday-morning talk shows to warn that Saddam's smoking gun would soon come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

The Bush doctrine was a doctrine in name only, a sales strategy contrived to dress up the single mission of regime change in Iraq with philosophical grandiosity worthy of F.D.R. There was never any serious intention of militarily pre-empting either Iran or North Korea, whose nuclear ambitions were as naked then as they are now, or of striking the countries that unlike Iraq were major enablers of Islamic terrorism. Axis of Evil was merely a clever brand name from the same sloganeering folks who gave us "compassionate conservatism" and "a uniter, not a divider" — so clever that the wife of a presidential speechwriter, David Frum, sent e-mails around Washington boasting that her husband was the "Axis of Evil" author. (Actually, only "axis" was his.)

Since then, the administration has fiddled in Iraq while Islamic radicalism has burned brighter and the rest of the Axis of Evil, not to mention Afghanistan and the Middle East, have grown into just the gathering threat that Saddam was not. And there's still no policy. As Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution writes on his foreign-affairs blog, Mr. Bush isn't pursuing diplomacy in his post-cowboy phase so much as "a foreign policy of empty gestures" consisting of "strong words here; a soothing telephone call and hasty meetings there." The ambition is not to control events but "to kick the proverbial can down the road — far enough so the next president can deal with it." There is no plan for victory in Iraq, only a wish and a prayer that the apocalypse won't arrive before Mr. Bush retires to his ranch.

But for all the administration's setbacks, its core belief in P.R. remains unshaken. Or at least its faith in domestic P.R. (It has never cared about the destruction of America's image abroad by our countenance of torture.) That marketing imperative, not policy, was once again the driving vision behind the latest Iraq offensive: the joint selling of the killing of Zarqawi, the formation of the new Maliki government, the surprise presidential trip to the Green Zone and the rollout of Operation Together Forward to secure Baghdad more than three years after its liberation from Saddam.

Operation Together Forward is just the latest model of the Axis of Evil gimmick. In his Rose Garden press conference last month, Mr. Bush promised that this juggernaut of crack Iraqi troops and American minders would "increase the number of checkpoints, enforce a curfew and implement a strict weapons ban across the Iraqi capital." It's been predictably downhill ever since. After two weeks of bloodshed, Col. Jeffrey Snow of the Army explained that the operation was a success even if the patient, Iraq, was dying, because "we expected that there would be an increase in the number of attacks." Last week, the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, allowed that there would be "adjustments" to the plan and that the next six months (why is it always six months?) would be critical. Gen. George Casey spoke of tossing more American troops into the Baghdad shooting gallery to stave off disaster.

So what's the latest White House strategy to distract from the escalating mayhem? Yet another P.R. scheme, in this case drawn from the playbook of fall 2003, when the president countered news of the growing Iraq insurgency by going around the media "filter" to speak to the people through softball interviews with regional media outlets. Thus the past two weeks have brought the spectacle of Mr. Bush yukking it up at Graceland, flattering immigrant workers at a Dunkin' Donuts, patronizing a children's lemonade stand in Raleigh, N.C., and meeting the press in such comfy settings as an outside-the-filter press conference (in Chicago) and "Larry King Live." The people, surely, are feeling better already about all that nasty business abroad.

Or not. The bounce in the polls that once reliably followed these stunts is no more. As Americans contemplate the tragedy of Iraq, the triumph of Islamic jihadists in "democracies" we promoted for the Middle East, and the unimpeded power plays of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they see reality for what it is. Gone are the days when "Mission Accomplished" would fly. Barring a miracle, one legacy of the Bush Iraq-centric foreign policy will be the mess that those who come next will have to clean up.

ANOTHER, equally significant, part of the Bush legacy is already evident throughout Washington, and not confined to foreign policy or the executive branch. Following the president's leadership, Congress has also embraced the virtual governance of substituting publicity stunts for substance.

Instead of passing an immigration law, this Congress has entertained us with dueling immigration hearings. Instead of overseeing the war in Iraq or homeland security, its members have held press conferences announcing that they, if not the Pentagon, have at last found Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (degraded mustard gas and sarin canisters from the 1980's). Instead of promised post-DeLay reforms, the House concocted a sham Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act that won't do away with the gifts and junkets politicians rake in from the Abramoffs of K Street. And let's not forget all the days devoted to resolutions about same-sex marriage, flag burning, the patriotism of The New York Times and the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Before long, Congress will be leaving on its summer vacation," Bob Schieffer of CBS News said two weeks ago. "My question is, how will we know they are gone?" By the calculation of USA Today, the current Congress is on track to spend fewer days in session than the "do-nothing Congress" Harry Truman gave hell to in 1948. No wonder its approval rating, for Republicans and Democrats together, is even lower than the president's. It's not only cowboy diplomacy that's dead at this point in the Bush era, but also functioning democracy as we used to know it.


Sad but true!!!!
 
Why We Fight Today. By: Me

Seventy years ago now, there was a man in England whom nobody listened to. He had been Lord of the Admirality during World War I, and after the war was over, he was shunned by his fellow politicians. His situation was similar to that of Julius Caesar, when he came into the Senate and Antony said to Caesar, "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look". To which Caesar basically replied "there's nothing I can do about that..." Antony replied to him "Such men as he never be at heart's ease, whilst they behold a greater than themselves".

And so, every time Parliament would meet, their customary first vote would normally be who would be prime minister. But instead, while this man was in Parliament, their first vote would be "Winston Churchill shall not hold any position of power", and then they would go about their business, because they knew that if he held a position of power, he would climb his way right to the top, and being the little worms they are, just like Cassius, they "never be at heart's ease, whilst they behold a greater than themselves". And so all during the 1930's, Winston Churchill offered warning after warning about Hitler's rise to power and military buildup. His fellow politicians would laugh at and scorn him. He pointed out Germany's past aggression, their past disregard for treaties, and their breaking of current treaties like the Treaty of Versailles.

And they still laughed at him. Churchill then proposed that England at least begin to build up a military, so that they would be on closer to equal footing should war come. They labeled him a warmonger, among other insults. And eventually Winston realized that they would not listen.

In 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria, and nobody did anything except "we condemn this and say it is wrong". And this sent a message to the rest of the globe saying "Hey, these guys won't stand up against us if we're careful about it..." Italy did the same thing in Ethiopia, and eventually Hitler went way beyond the Treaty of Versailles and remilitarized the Rhineland, and Churchill said "um, hello guys, do something", so they yelled at Hitler and said "don't do that". Then he went into Austria, again in disregard of the Treaty of Versailles, and the European and American leadership did nothing. He then went for the Sudetenland, and they claimed "that's it, if he goes after the rest of Czechoslovakia, that means war". Hitler thought to himself "these guys are a bunch of ninnies" and so he invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, and they STILL did nothing but yell at Hitler. And so Hitler called the leaders of Europe together to the Munich Conference, where he declared "I will not take any more countries, this one is it" (poor Czechoslovakia is down the tubes, but hey...)

And so Neville Chamberlain comes back with the Fuhrer's signature in his hands, claiming "peace in our time, peace in our time", everyone cheered, except one man, Winston Churchill. A reporter came and asked him, "What do you think of what the Prime Minister has done in securing peace in our time?" To which Winston Churchill replied "The Prime Minister faced a very difficult question, whether to choose war, or shame. And he has chosen both".

And as we know, on September 1, 1939, Hitler again broke his word, and plunged the world into the bloodiest war of all time, wherein FIFTY-FIVE MILLION people died. And if we asked Winston Churchill what he called this war, he would have replied "This war will go down in history as the unnecessary war". Because Sir Winston Churchill knew how to stop the war before it even started, but nobody had the backbone to do it.

Had Europe listened to Churchill, even making him Prime Minister of England, perhaps they would have immediately mobilized the forces of France and England to oppose the Fuhrer's military buildup, sparking a war that cost 10,000 lives, utterly destroyed Germany's ability to produce military equipment or train forces, and removed the Fuhrer from power. Had they done that, Sir Winston Churchill would have gone down in history as a man who started a needless war, and cost the lives of 10,000 people in the process.

HOWEVER, in the process of doing that, Sir Winston Churchill would have prevented World War II from ever happening, my grandmother would probably have her brother still alive to this day, and FIFTY-FIVE MILLION other people would have lived to old age. But, instead, in the name of "peace" and not involving ourselves in an "unnecessary war", we let the problem fester until our enemies became so emboldened that they felt they could control entire regions of the world, and eventually the whole globe, and we witnessed the bloodiest war in the history of mankind, simply because nobody had the spine to stand up and get rid of the problem when it was still a little problem.

Back in the early 1930's when Churchill was advocating military buildup, nobody would have pegged Hitler as a threat to the entire globe, or even the region. And so, I'll let you draw your own parallels to the current war in Iraq. That is what our soldiers gave their lives for, so that the new generation, being born today, does not have to fight this war down the road at the cost of millions of lives, when some other goose-stepping nutjob thinks we won't stand up to him.
 
Nice Post!

And so true, sadly true.

The Left wants us to lose. They feel it is the way back into power. If it happens, woe is the world.
 
Waiting for a response from Phil.

Oh - wait - that's right, Phil doesn't respond on his own. I guess he'll have to wait for another article by Frank al-Rich or Paul al-Krugman.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top