While Central Command’s Gen. John Abizaid defines
the “Long War” as the indefinite conflict against Islamic extremism
around the world, Bush and his supporters have already opened a second
front at home, determined to silence or neutralize domestic dissent that
they see as sapping American “will.”
Not only has Bush continued to purge his
second-term administration of even the most soft-spoken skeptics, but
his disdain for criticism has emboldened his supporters to routinely
refer to public dissenters as “traitors.”
Take, for instance, this letter from a Bush
supporter who was infuriated when USA Today’s founder Al Neuharth
suggested in an opinion column that U.S. troops should be brought home
from Iraq “sooner rather than later.”
“This is war and you
should be put in prison NOW for talking like this,” wrote someone by the
name of Mel Gibbs. “You give aid and comfort to our enemies and aid them
in murdering our proud soldiers. You people are a disgrace to America.
Your families should be put in prison with you.”
In case readers think the
extreme contents of this letter represent either parody or an
aberration, they should peruse other comments that Neuharth’s modest
suggestion elicited. Editor & Publisher editor Greg Mitchell
has compiled a number of responses in a follow-up column. [See
Editor & Publisher, Dec. 29, 2004]
Similar sentiments, of
course, can be heard on right-wing talk radio or from commentators, such
as best-selling author Ann Coulter. To many Bush backers,
extremism in defense of W. is no vice.
No Doubts
Meanwhile, at the White
House, there appear to be few of the second thoughts about the Long War
that some Washington pundits expected as Bush headed into his second
term. They foresaw a retreat from the grandiose neoconservative vision
for violently remaking the Middle East.
Instead Bush seems to be
throwing in his lot even more with the “neocons” while throwing out the
likes of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was regarded as a
counterweight to their influence. Even life-long Republicans who served
Bush’s father aren’t welcome in Bush’s second term if they disagreed
with the invasion of Iraq.
Retired Gen. Brent
Scowcroft, George H.W. Bush’s former national security adviser who
warned about the risks of getting bogged down in Iraq, is being dumped
as chairman of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,
according to journalist Sidney Blumenthal.
“The transition to President Bush's second term,
filled with backstage betrayals, plots and pathologies, would make for
an excellent chapter of ‘I, Claudius,’” wrote Blumenthal, who was
an adviser in President Bill Clinton’s White
House. “The elder Bush's national security adviser was the last
remnant of traditional Republican realism permitted to exist within the
administration.” [Guardian,
Dec. 30, 2004]
The Kerik Fiasco
While banishing doubters,
Bush has been recruiting sycophants.
Bush’s ill-fated choice
of Bernard Kerik to run the Department of Homeland Security collapsed
after disclosures of Kerik’s questionable judgment in other jobs and his
possible hiring of an illegal alien as a nanny. But the more troubling
story may have been that Bush wanted a yes man like Kerik to oversee a
department with broad powers over the civil liberties of American
citizens.
Though Bush judged the
former New York police commissioner to be a “good man,” others who knew
Kerik had different opinions. For instance, while working for a Saudi
hospital 20 years ago, Kerik ran the investigative arm of a security
force that allegedly harassed and spied on American employees because
they weren’t complying with strict Saudi rules governing alcohol and
dating, according to former hospital employees interviewed by the
Washington Post.
“Kerik was a
goon,” said John Jones, a former hospital manager who also called Kerik
and his security team “Gestapo.”
“Kerik used heavy-handed tactics in following single men around and
keeping them away from some women,” said Ted Bailey, a doctor at the
King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh. A paramedic named Michael
Queen said, “Men and women had to be careful with security, but Bernie
was the one we watched out for the most.”
In his 2001 autobiography, The Lost Son, Kerik said the Saudi
moral code put him in an awkward position of having to investigate the
private lives of Western employees. “It was challenging, negotiating
such a closed, rigid system and trying to find justice in laws that, to
an American, were unjust,” Kerik wrote.
Yet, while expressing discomfort over the demands from his Saudi
boss, Kerik followed orders and kept tabs on fellow Americans.
Eventually, even Saudi authorities apparently concluded that the
hospital security team went too far. Kerik and five other members of the
security staff were fired and deported, the former hospital employees
told the Post. [Washington
Post, Dec. 8, 2004]
Yes Men & Women
Though Kerik bowed out for the Homeland Security job, Bush has
displayed a readiness to appoint other top officials who will say and do
pretty much whatever the president wants.
Bush’s choice for Attorney General is White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales, who participated in legal opinions asserting Bush’s right as
commander-in-chief to override international law and abrogate
constitutional protections for U.S. citizens by labeling them “enemy
combatants.”
In summing up the White House position on Bush’s right to authorize
torture, one military lawyer called the scope of authority being
asserted “presidential power at its absolute apex.” [Wall Street
Journal, June 7, 2004]
To replace Secretary of State Powell, Bush has picked his close
confidant and national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who helped
whip up American fears of Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction by
alluding to possible “mushroom clouds.” Rice is so close to Bush that
she once slipped up at a dinner party and referred to Bush as “my husb…”
before catching herself and replacing that with “President Bush.”
Possibly more than any other administration in memory, Bush has
prized loyalty over all other virtues. Reinforcing this notion, Bush has
bestowed high honors on subordinates who complied with his wishes no
matter how wrongheaded.
On Dec. 14, Bush gave Medals of Freedom, the nation’s highest
civilian honor, to former CIA Director George Tenet, who gave Bush the
false intelligence on Iraq’s WMD to justify the war; to retired Gen.
Tommy Franks, who agreed to divert troops from chasing al-Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden to Bush’s other priority of invading Iraq; and to former
Iraq administrator Paul Bremer, who presided over the chaotic U.S.
occupation made worse by the administration’s decision to disband the
Iraqi army.
Future of War
Now, as Bush looks forward to his second Inaugural, the disturbing
view of the future is of the Long War, fought across the Islamic world
with no end in sight. In a blunt interview with the Washington Post’s
David Ignatius, Gen. Abizaid acknowledged that the Long War is still in
its early stages and will likely consume decades. Victory also will be
hard to measure, Abizaid said.
“Success will instead be an incremental process of modernization of
the Islamic world, which will gradually find its own accommodation with
the global economy and open political systems,” Ignatius wrote in
summarizing Abizaid’s position. [Washington
Post, Dec. 26, 2004]
Despite the gravity of this moment, there has been remarkably little
debate in the United States about whether the “Long War” strategy to
remake the Middle East is, first, necessary and, second, achievable.
For its supporters, the war’s necessity is beyond debate, given that
Islamic extremists from al-Qaeda attacked U.S. targets on Sept. 11,
2001. Bush himself was sold on a military-oriented solution to the
threat in the days after the attacks as well as on the wisdom of making
the invasion of Iraq a centerpiece of the strategy, though Saddam
Hussein’s secular dictatorship had nothing to do with Sept. 11.
The neoconservative thinking went that U.S. military force in Iraq
would give rise to a pro-American government in Baghdad, followed by
similar changes in other Middle Eastern capitals. The only worthwhile
discussion was over tactics for “winning,” not the wisdom of hitting
back hard in the Islamic world.
Alternate View
But the challenges posed by the Sept. 11 attacks could be viewed
quite differently. Indeed, investigations of the terror attacks have
revealed that al-Qaeda’s daring blow was somewhat a lucky punch that
landed in part because the newly arrived Bush administration rebuffed
warnings from Clinton administration holdovers.
The Bush newcomers believed the Clinton team overemphasized dangers
from Islamic terrorism while underestimating the threat of missile
attacks from North Korea and other “rogue states.” Bush didn’t even
convene his counter-terrorism experts in August 2001 when the CIA sent
him a warning, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.”
Though the answer will never be known, a strong response to the CIA
warning might have disrupted the attacks that killed 3,000 people.
If one concludes that the Sept. 11 attacks were a lucky punch, that
would suggest that a more targeted reaction to Islamic terrorism might
be in order – a mix of defensive measures at home, special military
operations aimed at hard-core terrorists, and steps to address root
causes of Islamic animosity, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Under that analysis, waging a Long War and occupying a major Islamic
country such as Iraq could be putting the United States in greater
danger, not less. The goal of killing “a lot of bad guys” – as Abizaid’s
advisers put the challenge – may be emotionally satisfying, but it can
only work if U.S. policy doesn’t generate more hatred across the Islamic
world and thus more “bad guys.”
When U.S. troops engage in torture, sexual humiliation of captives,
execution of battlefield wounded and the killing of civilians – which
have been unfortunate but predictable results of the U.S. invasion of
Iraq – it is equally predictable that antipathy toward the United States
will deepen. [For example, see the Los Angeles Times’ Dec. 29, 2004,
article “Getting
an Education in Jihad” about a Lebanese teacher who grew furious
over U.S. mistreatment of Iraqis and traveled to Iraq to join the
insurgents.]
The hard truth is that Abizaid’s Long War may not only be long,
bloody and costly, it may be counterproductive, increasing danger to the
American homeland, not reducing it. Meanwhile, the war is certain to
exacerbate political animosities at home, while inviting the Bush
administration and its successors to step up suppression of dissent.
Just as the long Cold War gave rise to the military-industrial
complex that President Dwight Eisenhower warned against, the Long War
against Islamic extremism will put the United States on a course toward
a more militarized society, a form of government more like an Empire
than a Republic.