Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, January 15, 2005

Iraq: Rewriting history and creating a justification for irrational foreign policy

Flimsy goals. Flimsy accountability. And a bizarre foreign policy. Those who got the "WMD in Iraq"-argument wrong are not ones to give up. The latest move is to shift attention from their failed forecast, and now use more convoluted tales to justify US foreign policy.

As if absurdity is a strategy; that bungling is by design; and instability is a quality to be respected. It is not.

Beachhead to what?

One argument going around is that the US, despite no WMD in Iraq and no link with AlQueda or Bin Ladin, will now be able to use Iraq to go after AlQueda in other places like Iran, Syria, and Turkey.

This is the beachhead argument from WWII and Guadal Canal, but doesn't hold water: There's no explanation where AlQueda is physically located in the countries surrounding Iraq.

In reality, the US invasion of Iraq has precipitated the insurgency, while the revisionists US argues it is there in Iraq to fight an AlQueda problem, which they selectively pretend didn't exist.

Lying, but not now

There's another canard floating around. That the US "did lie in 1991 in whether the US would do anything if Iraq would make a claim on Kuwait," as part of a deliberate strategy of insightful deception.

Brilliant. What is to say this argument is similarly not part of another deception? No answer.

Rather, if the "US bluffed to gain advantage"-rule is applied to 9-11, then we could conclude that the US deliberately chose to do nothing in order to justify invading Iraq and going after AlQuedea.

Notice the double standard: Inaction and deception are par for the course when used to explain US success, but that same standard of inaction somehow doesn't apply when applied to the US in re 9-11.


Another comical argument is that the US deliberately chose to invade Iraq, not because of Iraq, but because of Saudi Arabia. That's right. All that pre-9-11 planning which Tip O'Neill said was going on to clearly topple Iraq, actually had nothing to do with Iraq, but to persuade Saudi Arabia to reform, but not isolate or embarrass the Saudi government which would have sparked popular support for bin Ladin and AlQueda.

This is a ridiculous theory. Iraq-invasion plans were in place before 9-11 and AlQueda was on the radar map.

If this is true, then we are to believe that the smear against O'Neill's book was part of a greater plan to create the illusion that Bush was upset about O'Neill's awareness of something which O'Neill never mentioned.

Again, what's happening is greater levels of non-sense are being used to explain away initial problems that do not add up. Yet, the public is buying it. "Oh, so that explain it all..."

DoD Desperation

It remains to be understood how much money DoD is paying for this non-sense to be spewed out. What is happening is those who oppose Bush are being painted not as problems, but as actually helping Bush in perpetuating the illusion that Bush is unstable, and must be reckoned with, unlike Carter and Nixon. The opposition is doing good, therefore failing.

Again, this is an absurd theory. Because DoD is incorrectly assuming that "people who oppose Bush are doing so because they support bin Ladin; therefore if the opponents think their opposition is helping Bush, they will stop."

This line of thinking presupposes opposition exists for the sake of opposition, while the real anti-Bush core is simply related to a fervent desire to protect the constitution from a madman.

DoD has forgotten what their oath really means

DoD has lost sight of their collecting responsibility to safeguard the document, ethics, and UCMJ all the while making excuses for the continued leadership problem and lack of senior commander accountability.

What is comical is the illusion of "ineptness as a strategy." Bush is inept. What's being done is to celebrate this ineptness as a careful choice to confuse bin Ladin.

In practice, the White House, Cheney and the Senior Staff have forgotten the other half of the equation. One cannot simply fight an enemy. One must also rally the home front. A requirement has failed, barely squeezing by a win with only 100,000 votes in Ohio.

The President's overtures post-November 2004 election have ended. It's back to business as usual: Make up stories, blame others, and use "the war" and "terrorism" as the convenient rallying cry where leadership fails.

Bush only acted in South Asia's Tsunami when it was self-evident AlQueda and other nations were moving faster.


There's another rewriting of history when it comes to explaining, "Why did the US have no intelligence about WMD in Iraq." The convoluted argument goes something like this: Because the US only focused on the Russian Politburo, the US thought it only had to monitor Saddam; Saddam was clueless about WMD and had no idea he was being lied to; the US relied on Saddam's cluelessness as a datapoint in assuming, "What Saddam believes to be true must be true.

This line of logic is self-evidently absurd. But the argument presupposes that US intelligence gathering in Russia pre-Cold-War-end was focused exclusively on the Politburo. It was not. US intelligence had agents all over the then-USSR, not just in one place outside Moscow.

Leadership Bluffed

Also, the "Saddam was fooled because he was at the top is a unique problem to Russia and Iraq"-argument is troubling. All world governments have this problem. Thus, to argue, "The US only made the error in Iraq because it incorrectly assumed that the leadership in Russia was 'in-the-know' and the 'same Cold war intelligence made the same error in Iraq" ... is simply ridiculous.

The reason the US had a problem with intelligence in Iraq wasn't because of a "Cold War psychology or focus in the CIA to focus only on the leadership in the USSR; and only focus on the USSR-now-Russians."

Rather, the US consciously chose, despite the warnings that the Russians were a paper-tiger, to not prepare for their demise and a peace.

Also, the US intelligence problems in Iraq were not simply because of a Cold-War-focus on defending Europe from the then-USSR. Rather, the US simply chose to, despite a war between Iraq and Iran, not to develop sources and intelligence capability in the region where the US's core oil interests reside.

Such a choice should not be considered strategic. Call it what it is: Foolish, short sighed, and reckless. Yet, post 2004, somehow the same forces which launched this approach to preserving US interests, now wish to argue that the bungling in Iraq is somehow to be celebrated.

Indeed, the White House has taken the appropriate political solution: Blame someone else in the CIA for their acquiescing to Cheney's baseball bat. The US leadership wants it both ways: To suggest in Abu Ghraib that they "didn't know," but at the same time suggest, "They knew better than the CIA." How selectively convenient.

Selectively knowing, but not knowing

It is problematic to suggest that the US government "didn't know" about the abuses in Abu Ghraib. During court testimony, it was acknowledged that the gentleman standing by the pyramid had an alleged insubordination problem for not following orders and that the pattern of conduct meant that he could not be relied upon.

This is core problem for the Administration. Because if this now-convicted war criminal truly was unreliable as the military tribunal found, then why was he allowed to stay in the prison unsupervised and allowed to engage in conduct that was apparently, "Not following orders."

Clearly, the military, DoD and the Administration have a problem now that this has come out in the courts martial. The Administration and DoD now have to explain how the torture occurred by someone the leadership "should have" known was a problem:

  • Where was the documented 'not following orders'?

  • Why was this now-convicted war criminal left to his own, despite this pattern "problem with not doing what he was supposed to do"?

    DoD's problem is they cannot explain how all this happened despite knowing there was a problem with this soldier. Thus, we are left to conclude the White House has done what it always does: Discredit the one that has been caught, and quickly hide.

    The White House has a problem. And they know it. Moreover, rather than get DoD's Rumsfeld to account for the "pattern of torture," the White House is deploying soon-to-be-replaced Ridge.

    What use is it to have a denial from Ridge about "whether or not the US condones torture"? Ridge has nothing to do with DoD. The accountability and questions should be placed on Rumsfeld.

    But they are not. Curious. It appears the White House knows that a "denial of knowledge about war crimes and torture" in Abu Ghraib form Rumsfeld are known to be admissible. The solution is to defer the issues to outgoing Ridge.

    Rome, Ceasar, and Political commentary

    The US is behaving how the Romans did. Use force. Be brutal. And then crucify a scapegoat.

    The US should not be rewarded with joyful celebrations of this absurdity. There is no grand plan to surprise the enemy. There is a grand plan to solve problems, and the US leadership is the one that is most surprised: They realize they do not have the information, are out of touch, and that they believe their own delusions more than reality.

    This isn't simply "doing more of what Saddam did in re WMD", but what Hitler did when he foolishly invaded Russia.

    The US's action are not part of a strategy to confuse. The US is not deliberately trying to do the unexpected. Rather, the US is choosing to act without regard for the rule of law and the Constitution.

    That is not a strategy. That is a leadership and accountability problem. It is absurd to celebrate recklessness. This is at odds with the American values.


    What is actually happening is the United States citizenry, as in Rome, has let the leadership get away with more than what was reasonable.

    Caesar knew he could get away with things. And he did. Thus, this is why you are reminded, once again, of what can be done. What a leader does do. And what a citizenry, when infused with passion will ignore.

    One day, you will realize that "Caesar" is not a man, but an idea. That Caesar is not a subject of a play, but a notion of a momentum that moves at odds with the fundamental principles of the land.

    A wise prince is wise. He does not squander his power. Nor does he squander his resources, as has this President.

    He is no Caesar. He would like to afford himself the immunity of a Caesar, and at the same time divert attention to those who dare challenge his recklessness.

    Rome was no different. And today's citizenry, infused with passion and a desire to hold onto any semblance of decency, simply turns a blind eye to the continued foolishness.

    The national mind and consciousness is affected. It accepts the above non-sense as "more signs" of "leadership."

    It should be taken for what it is. A symptom of a people who have been sparked with passionate minds, which has clouded their sense of reason and good order.

    They gladly chose

    The national psychology has not "suddenly" changed, nor taken on a "new" acceptance of irrationality. Rather, the "leadership" merely continues to hold, as its standard, ever greater lies, in the hopes that the masses will acquiesce, and then turn their rage upon those who might otherwise state the self-evident absurdity.

    To what end these might take us it not unknown. As power, when absolute, as it is in the United States when it is unchecked, will end badly. First for the masses. Then for the country.

    Ultimately, the absolute power and abuse will come tumbling down. But not without a fight. Not without creating many scapegoats. Not without missing the obvious.


    Let us hope the world awakens, and that this passionate citizenry, although warned, will awaken from this daydream. Not likely, as every convoluted logic is now celebrated as self-evidently "inspired" and an example of a greater purpose and plan.

    Too bad the details and leadership are wanting. He has done this. He, the "Caesar," has diverted attention. And the people, emboldened, fearful, and disjointed have rushed to embrace that which is most absurd: They have offered unto the leader all that might protect them from the leader--their rights, their mind, and their souls.

    This man, this new "Caesar," has done this.

    How do I know?

    For, this is what I have seen. So have you. Simply open your eyes. You will see, he is no Caesar. He is no leader.

    He is a madman. And he will sacrifice you and others to save himself. He already has the constitution. There is little stopping him, but for your mind.

    You have already heard this before. Time is running out. The fog continues to advance. Awaken!

    It is time to think more. To expand your mind. To notice.

    Yet, the continued action and momentum shows us who might be a puppet. They used many.

    Have many chosen to do be used? Indeed, out of fear. Out of hate. Out of love.

    Do you love your freedom and constitution more than you love this current crusade? If you do, you need to remember what was done to get your freedom, to preserve it, and protect it.

    At home. Not "out there." But in your country. In your land. And within your own spirit.

    If you love your constitution as much as you love your freedom, you will pause. To reflect. To ask. To wonder. Whether you must be told in a play what to do.

    This is not a play. This is not a movie. This is your life. And your future.

    It is happening. Unfolding. Before your eyes. Right now.