All Honorable Men

I have written often about my perplexity concerning this administration and its courses. The most recent attempt , ‘Bush Who’, was mostly concerned with the President himself. It does not satisfy on the larger question of nearly inexplicable courses pursued by a whole administration. I find it possible, however, to propose something far more cynical and profoundly disturbing which does cohere. In the end, it ascends into a truly frightening empyrean.

To do this, we must go back to the University of Chicago and a Professor of Philosophy and the Classics who taught there from the late 40’s until the late 60s, Leo Strauss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss [1]

In this, I first want to emphasize that I am by no means sure Strauss himself actually bears much real responsibility for what I am about to outline. His principle obsession(?) in these matters appears to have been a then widely expressed concern that democracies were liable to fecklessness. That is to say they would be slow and reluctant to defend themselves against threat (as witness the 30s experience with Fascism). Of course, why this should obsess intellectuals of Strauss’ era is all too obvious, but the associated anxieties can legitimately be extended to any era, time and place. In particular, although a clear a war for survival – WWII (after Pearl Harbor) – seems overwhelmingly likely to trigger an appropriate response (however dangerously belated it might be), what might happen when clearly vital interests (oil?) are in placed in jeopardy. Will democracies take the ‘necessary’ actions?

The unstated assumption would be that such will likely involve military aggression. THAT comes up against the consistent observation that modern democracies don’t fight wars. The reason for this is generally left to float out there as, more or less, ‘ a given’. In fact ‘the reason’ can be simply stated: modern democracies are prosperous, and their people understand better things to do with their lives than to go out there and get shot for strategic control of some ‘vital interest’. Find some other way! Cutting some deal or innovating are far more likely than not to be preferred to war - and democratically enjoined.

WAR!?! THAT’S ME! THAT’S MY KIDS!

The thinking which has been associated with Strauss centers on a Platonic formulation. The demos ultimately cannot be trusted. It is fickle, insufficiently reflective, and too ready to indulge irresponsibility. The responsible wise men of the society, its leaders, must exercise their powers to redeem such unfortunate situations as will, from time to time, arise. They are enjoined to do this by employing all their political skills, explicitly to include the telling of ‘noble lies’. That is to say, engaging the demos with such representations of things as will persuade it to do the difficult things that must be done. The wise men ‘know best’ and pursue ‘higher truth’.

Suppose then a group of ‘patriots’ who believe deeply in America. An America not simply of the blood or soil, but as an ideal of freedom and liberty, a beacon, a shining city on a hill, Lincoln’s ‘Last Best Hope of Earth’. An America to whom the opportunity has fallen to lead the world, in the world’s own best interest, to a promised land. It would be criminal to fail this responsibility. But, these patriots clearly see, as just suggested, an inconstant, often heedless American body politic, easily diverted and too often ‘not up to the task’.

What to do?

The Project for a New American Century was formed in the 1990’s as think tank like effort to consider America’s future on the world stage.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf [2]

Ultimately PNAC offered a blue print: Rebuilding America’s Defenses.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf [2]

PNAC became an explicit continuation of a group under Wolfowitz in the Bush I administration that (with Cheney’s blessing) set up to strategize outside the box. What they came up with was issued as ‘Plan B’. It proposed an American leadership whose proper objective would be to make and keep America paramount, the only power able to truly shape things, and that compromising allies - who might not ‘go along’ with America’s vision - as well as opposing our foes might be contemplated. When Plan B went public, George H W Bush was appalled, publicly condemned it, and had it both withdrawn and specifically rejected by those associated with it.

Perhaps the two most signature items in Rebuilding America’s Defenses are an injunction that our military must be prepared to fight multiple simultaneous major theatre wars, and a lamentation that it might take ‘another Pearl Harbor’; to allow us to ‘go there’.

Then comes 9/11.

By some chance, by some quirk of fate, (or by the hand of God?), a number of these ‘patriots’ find themselves uniquely positioned to play the role of Platonic wise men. How can they not seize the opportunity?

What would they do?

First find a ‘causus belli’. Initially very easy: Afghanistan. But they cannot succeed too well. A palpable blow must be struck, but not in any way conclusive. A longer term objective, more involving, more deeply engaging is needed. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are by far the most likely target. And beyond this a ‘Great Enemy’ must found. And it is! Radical Islam: especially in its conjunction with modern technology. [From the National Security Strategy of 2002: “The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology.” An almost infinitely inflatable bogeyman is realized, inspiring fear and outrage. Kept alive in the public imagination, enlivened as it will be by the all too real trauma of 9/11, we arrive at something which conspires to keep us creatures of our fears. A ‘permanent’ injunction to make the hard choices, and bear the difficult burdens necessary to keep America strong and dominant.

So tell those ‘Noble Lies’!

It must rip the heart out of any American to observe that nearly everything we (which is to say our ‘patriots’) have done finds a coherent explanation within this framework. The ‘failures’ aren’t failures at all. They offer excuses to continue on chosen courses. We didn’t want to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, barely three months after 9/11. How could the American public be persuaded on Iraq if Al Qaeda, who so hideously attacked us on 9/11, and to whom Saddam might give ‘those weapons’, was out of business, with its leader dead or facing international justice? Why concern yourself overly with taking maximal steps to prevent Al Qaeda from getting at least some of Saddam’s weaponry - some lesser stuff as we gather the bulk to justify our invasion? (Recall - all of the world’s security agencies knew Saddam had no nuclear capability.) How else could we have been so casual as we managed to secure NO Weapons of Mass Destruction? (If we hadn’t found any, then, at best, Osama could have found but little.) Ultimately, of course, everyone lucked out: there were no W.M.D.s. Then an insurgency in Iraq, along with other problematic situations in Middle East (IRAN!, Pakistan), works to our benefit, providing reasons for a continuing strong military presence in a vital, resource rich, region of the world. And, needless to say, violence and turmoil in the area constantly serves to refresh our fear of ‘the bogeyman’. Finally, why truly settle the Israeli Palestinian conflict, since the ability of such a solution to compromise the appeal of radical Islam – and diminish the ‘bogeyman’ - is all too manifest?

So, then, who are our ‘wise men’.

To begin with, let me say who I believe they are not, starting with the President himself. Neither I, nor, I expect, anyone, can see Bush even conceiving a permanent group of Platonic ‘wise men’, telling noble lies’ and guiding the country. However, for reasons I suggest in ‘Bush Who’, he proved to be highly susceptible, a ‘set up’, for their objectives after 9/11. And I believe he is knowingly and sincerely committed to the idea that, in the choices his administration has made since 9/11, he is pursuing some ‘higher truth’, or deeper reality, and that it is his job to ‘sell’ the choices made. And, of course, as President: HE IS RESPONSIBLE!

I would find it hard to believe any of our serving military are part of a group of self elected ‘wise men’. It is too contrary to American tradition, training and - far from least - the honor of our military. I must observe, however, that these same individuals are surely susceptible to injunctions to maintain high levels of American military strength.

I would find it hard to believe our judiciary would be involved – again too contrary to our history. But, as well, recent trends to the right have placed in highly consequential positions individuals who are manifestly likely to be more, rather than less, sympathetic to appeals in favor of greater governmental authority in national security matters. Exactly what our ‘wise men’ might hope for.

I do not believe Colin Powell to have been in on this at all, but Powell’s ‘good soldier’ orientation did not serve this country well in a critical moment. Nor do I believe Condoleeza Rice was in any way involved, although, like others I believe she proved all too persuadable.

So then, WHO?

At one point or other, and in critical positions all too often:

In Power – Cheney, to begin with, along with David Addison and I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby; then the Defense Department axis of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, and including sometime national security gadfly and ‘advisor’ Richard Pearl. In Justice, John Woo must certainly be a possibility.

In Support - I deem likely to be ‘in’ with the idea of Platonic ‘wise men’

public intellectuals like Irving Kristal and his son William, Norman Podhoretz, and Charles Krauthammer.

Then in broader support, although unwitting, a truly massive operation consisting of right wing media, the money that finances both that media and various aggregations that provide ‘think tank’ underpinning for the directions our ‘wise men’ have charted, and finally a Republican Party all too mindlessly compliant, chiefly in what amounts to a devil’s bargain for holding on to political power, with all that power’s other uses.

NOW UNDERSTAND: I am not asserting that there really is an operative group of ‘wise men’, but that the operation of such offers the only (nearly?) coherent explanation for all that has happened. As one who made a career in science, which works to discover exactly such explanations, I am fully aware that the existence of a logical explanation in no way constitutes PROOF. Unfortunately the arrival of a logically coherent explanation comes with the proposal of a point of view I believe would revolt any American, explicitly including the gentlemen just proposed to have elected themselves as our ‘wise men’.

I am, in general, a resolute foe of conscious conspiracy theories. Unconscious ones, conspiracies of commonly held self-interest, even self-delusion, I deem far more likely. But what I have proposed here is explicitly a conscious one. Nevertheless, I find it not unreasonable to suppose a group of ‘super-patriots’, convinced of the nation’s need, persuaded of their own unimpeachable honor, and the virtue of their ultimate aims, who could accept Strauss’ arguments for Platonic ‘wise men’ and the telling of ‘Noble Lies’.

If the attendant circumstances were not so grave, it would qualify as farce.

To conclude. if there is a conscious conspiracy, it is treason pure and simple. But setting that aside, I believe these people have broken American law and betrayed such sacred trusts that President George W Bush and Vice President Richard B.

Cheney should be impeached and removed from office. Our history cries out for it.

My personal conviction runs deeper. I believe it would be just if President George W. Bush,Vice President Richard B. Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld were arraigned, indicted, tried and a verdict reached for Criminal Incompetence and Criminal Negligence over the Iraq War. Guilty or not guilty, I would be content. If the verdict were guilty and punishment imposed, I believe justice would have been served. If that punishment were death, I would believe justice had been served. I am appalled that I should think this last, but I do. And I am saddened well beyond words.

‘. . . we, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility’ - Abraham Lincoln, message to the Congress 1863.

All Honorable Men!