On My Mind; The Way Out
By A. M. ROSENTHAL
Published: Tuesday, April 23, 1991
The way exists yet for President Bush to escape from the political and moral trap into which he has thrust himself. But he cannot find it in meetings of the National Security Council or in phone calls to foreign leaders.
It is right there in the Oval Office, within him, a few words waiting to be uttered first to himself, then to his countrymen.
"I made a serious error. It is my duty to rectify it. I will do so."
He would be saying exactly what everybody knows. The mistake lives, stares at him and must disturb his soul, as it would any decent person's.
Two months after a brilliant military campaign ended in victory, Mr. Bush has achieved the worst of worlds for millions of Iraqi rebels and for American policy in the Mideast.
In numbers and pain the mind can barely encompass, Iraqi rebels he encouraged to rise up have taken their wives and children and fled to starvation and death rather than face death at the hands of the killer whom the coalition conquered.
Now they are being coaxed, herded off the mountains, to be placed in refugee pens. For how long? Years, possibly; decades conceivably.
I speak to their representatives, Kurdish leaders, in New York and Washington, London, other cities. They are people of dignity. They can no longer bear the thought and sight of their relatives rooting and fighting for bread, a cup of water.
So they are being forced to dicker with the killer, who speaks softly to them. He beckons, because now he sees them as useful in their defeat. If he can wheedle them back, maybe the embargo will be lifted, maybe he will soon be acceptable again, maybe even to the U.S. Didn't Washington embrace him before, as he killed?
The Kurds say maybe he will agree to a new government, with the U.N. sharing power, maybe. Free elections some day maybe. Would Saddam Hussein honor such an agreement when the world turned its attention away? Over the phone, their voices shrug -- they have been betrayed by America; what is left but another betrayal by the butcher?
For the U.S., Mr. Bush has achieved the herder's role. American troops are going back to Iraq, as Mr. Bush swore they would not. They are back for no gain to the rebels but some food and shelter.
For the U.S. the only gain will be conscience salve that need not have been necessary. For peace in the Mideast -- disaster; there will be no peace as long as Saddam Hussein rules, and threatens to rise again.
Where have we heard that before? Oh yea, Bush 43 -- maybe 43 read Mr. Rosenthal editorial and remembered his words, and made it happen. For peace in the Mid-East.
Mr. Bush made two mistakes. One was to end the war a few days too early, leaving the killer with tanks, planes and artillery to destroy the rebels. That is hindsight; perhaps Mr. Bush could not know what would happen.
But the second mistake was made looking straight at it -- the failure to order Saddam Hussein to cease his new war, against his own people.
When the U.S. gave him that order after the slaughter, he obeyed. He would have had no choice but to obey much earlier -- the day he started killing. But what to do now? Exactly what the U.S. could have done before: recognize the cease-fire as a false peace, present the Iraqi Army with an ultimatum -- to get rid of Saddam Hussein or the U.S. will resume the air attack on military targets and every high officer will be tried for war crimes.
With the killer gone, Iraqis can be left to their own political settlements. The only duty of the U.S. is to allow those who trusted us to return to their homes, free of terror. "Free of terror" good words, good words, Mr. Rosenthal
But to do that, Mr. Bush must show true strength -- the ability to concede error, not only for the soul's sake, which is sufficient itself, but to act effectively.
Unless he does, he will find himself more and more tightly entwined in his own rationalizations, unable to cut free of his bonds because he will not admit they exist. Every adult knows that we waste our energies and talent when we try to justify the unjustifiable instead of setting ourselves and the record straight and getting on with life. In this, Presidents are no different than the rest of us.
The country would embrace Mr. Bush for his courage. Yea, they have embraced Bush 43, so you are correct!
He would save its name and the chances of real peace. He would be able to give lasting succor to those who believed in him. The sweetest reward is that they would again.
#1
Oh horseshit, Abe. The 1991 decision was quite reasonable. The only thing that tipped the balance in favor of regime removal was 9/11. How obvious can something be, and still elude even 50% of otherwise thoughtful war supporters? Did Iraq's barbarous internal behavior suddenly require regime removal in 2003? Uh, no. Did Iraq actually do anything specific WRT WMD or global jihadi terror in 2002/2003 that required regime removal? Uh, no.
It was the inherent, uncontainable, intolerable menace posed by Iraqi resources, recklessness, long record of both WMD virtuosity and deep involvement with global jihadi terror including with the majority parnter in AQ (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) - this package of factors required a judgement call as to whether the Iraqi regime could be left in place.
Both Bush 41 and 43 made exactly the right judgement call in each case. Bush 43's refusal to sufficiently educate, refute, and communicate on the war rationale (apart from bare minimum prior to the war) is no excuse for informed people not to realize the logic and facts that drove the decision.
(and all this leaves aside the stupid or intellectually dishonest premise of Abe's op-ed - that Bush 41's team expected the Ba'ath regime to survive Desert Storm - they certainly, and reasonably, did not).
#2
However, Bush Sr. Administration act of giving lip service to the up rising in the south and thus encouraging it, then doing nothing to end the butchery and playing into technicalities of allowing Iraq attack helios to fly [which was meant just for unarmed transports to permit government officials to travel in light of the destruction of the transport infrastructure] was not reasonable. Getting rid of dictators was heady in the afterglow of the fall of the wall, but the record pretty much shows that such people are only removed by outside action, direct or indirect, but backed by something more substantive than 'hope'. Hope is not a strategy.
#3
Mock airplanes, the second infitada, 147 shooting with US Troops, Kurd Gassing, Iranian gassing, 3 million dead in autocratic systems of sunni vs shia in the naval of the mythyle east, the weapons rummy gave him, destruction of dissidence and fleeing of Iraqis to the US begging us to do this, UN sanction, and an entire world that all agreed he was a brutal menace.
#5
IIRC our U.N. mandate in 1991 was to regain kuwaiti sovereignty NOT remove saddam hussein from power. So Bush Sr is ridiculed for following a U.N. mandate and W gets ridiculed for uni-lateralism - the left is truly retarded. IMHO we could have removed hussein during his first breaking of UN SCR 687 in 1992. WMDs didn't need to be the issue, 17 violations of a u.n. mandate over a 12 yr period written in the blood of 299 Americans was sufficient causus belli.
#6
Ah, procopius, I'd almost forgotten perhaps the most universally swallowed myth of modern times. The Kurdish and Shi'a rebellions were spontaneous, multi-faceted, and had absolutely nothing to do with any stated US policy or viewpoint.
The Kurdish rebellion had been ongoing for decades, in one form or another and at different levels of intensity. When the US hit mukkhabarrat centers up north during the war, and the Iraqi Army and regime types started breaking ranks in panic for various reasons as we smashed through Kuwait and into southwest Iraq, the Kurds in the army (jash, or donkeys) deserted and things went crazy.
No evidence, or reason to believe, that any US statement, public or private, played any role.
Ditto in the south (with different details, obviously). Even more disorganized.
Bush 41 made a speech to a vets' outfit in late February '91. This was during the extended air campaign, prior to the ground operation. The predictable and despicable and idiotic whining and triple-guessing was going on, from the Beltway to foreign capitals, by "press," academics, Dems, and assorted foreign adversaries and dictators and fascist sympathizers, about the need for a "pause". Moscow's slimy MidEast errand boy, Primakov, visted B'dad and then went before the cameras to declare, absurdly and slanderously, that the air campaign was "destroying an entire civilization."
In response to precisely this idiocy, Bush 41 included remarks in his vets speech to the effect that there was an alternative - that is, an alternative to the air campaign. An ALTERNATIVE, that is, to continued Coalition military action. That was for the "Iraqi people" - clearly the military was the target here - to remove Saddam's regime.
Thus, not only did Bush not encourage rebellion with a promise of Coalition military support, he explicitly made such a rebellion an ALTERNATIVE to continued Coalition action.
And there's no reason to believe that these remarks were heard, correctly or incorrectly, by any significant number of Iraqis (power was out, thanks to the USAF). My own informal survey of Iraqis during two years there resulted in a uniform reaction from both Kurds and Shi'a - "huh??". They of course regretted that the Coalition did not rush in to finish off Saddam, but scoffed that some US presidential address was the reason hundreds of different Iraqi factions and individuals acted spontaneously in the rather obvious way when the war had knocked the regime off balance.
Oh - and Schwarzkopf adds to the frustrating idiocy with his focus on helicopters. Rotary air was not material to the outcome or cost of suppressing either the northern or southern uprisings. It probably was a complete non-factor. The damage was done the old-fashioned way - foot soldiers, small arms, and artillery (esp. in the south). Armor played a role. Helicopters? Ridiculous.
I know it all seems like a small point, but it illustrates a huge, and catastrophic phenomenon - the gigantic coral reef of misinformation and misunderstanding upon which so many people make their judgements on foreign policy. Obviously folks around here have good instincts and usually avoid grave error - but these myths add up and partly explain how otherwise intelligent people who are usually grouped in other political categories can entertain such preposterous ideas about national security.
It's not nit-picking. And I just scraped the tip of that reef .... there's also the insane nonsense about Amb. Glaspie giving a "green light" to Saddam, and so on.
President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our countrys banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.
This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.
The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.
When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers get something back for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administrations proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own partys conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.
But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. Preferred means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.
And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. Thats called socialism.
Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.
With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.
Meanwhile, to keep its leverage over the economy intact, the Obama administration is refusing to let banks and other companies give back the TARP money until they pass a financial stress test. Nominally, the government justifies this procedure by saying that it does not want companies to become fully private prematurely and then need more help later on. But dont believe it. They want to keep the TARP money in the banks so they can have a reason and rationale to control them.
The Times story did not influence the dialogue of the day. People were much more concerned with the death of 21 horses at a polo match. Much as we will miss these noble animals, we will miss our economic freedom more.
At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides.
Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.
The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.
Obama tried personally to reassure the CIA workforce during a visit to Langley on Monday. He said all the right things about the agency's clandestine role. But it had the look of a campaign event, with employees hooting and hollering and the president reading from his teleprompter with a backdrop of stars that commemorate the CIA's fallen warriors. By yesterday, Obama was deferring to the attorney general whether to prosecute "those who formulated those legal decisions," whatever that means.
Obama seems to think he can have it both ways -- authorizing an unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods and at the same time galvanizing a clandestine service whose best days, he told them Monday, are "yet to come." Life doesn't work that way -- even for charismatic politicians. Disclosure of the torture memos may have been necessary, as part of an overdue campaign to change America's image in the world. But nobody should pretend that the disclosures weren't costly to CIA morale and effectiveness.
Put yourself in the shoes of the people who were asked to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners in 2002. One former officer told me he declined the job, not because he thought the program was wrong but because he knew it would blow up. "We all knew the political wind would change eventually," he recalled. Other officers who didn't make that cynical but correct calculation are now "broken and bewildered," says the former operative.
For a taste of what's ahead, recall the chilling effects of past CIA scandals. In 1995, then-Director John Deutch ordered a "scrub" of the agency's assets after revelations of past links to Guatemalan death squads. Officers were told they shouldn't jettison sources who had provided truly valuable intelligence. But the practical message, recalls one former division chief, was: "Don't deal with assets who could pose political risks." A similar signal is being sent now, he warns.
One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called "risk of capture" interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and "pocket litter" were exploited quickly.
Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.
Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the United States in a process politely known as "liaison." A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: "There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they've done in the past."
If Obama means what he says about protecting the CIA workforce and its operational edge, he must give up the idea that he can please everyone on this issue. He should recommend limits on any congressional inquiry and resist demands for a special prosecutor. Instead, he should push the White House's preferred alternative -- a commission that can review secret evidence behind closed doors, then report to the nation.
America will be better off, in the long run, for Obama's decision to expose the past practice of torture and ban its future use. But meanwhile, the country is fighting a war, and it needs to take care that the sunlight of exposure doesn't blind its shadow warriors.
#1
America will be better off, in the long run, for Obama's decision to expose the past practice of torture and ban its future use. But meanwhile, the country is fighting a war, and it needs to take care that the sunlight of exposure doesn't blind its shadow warriors.
#2
FacePalm, no disrespect, but where do you stand? Do you advocate for ending water-boarding or not?
It seems to me that most of the people decrying water-boarding as "torture" are so insulated from the harsh physical realities 99% of the world live under, that they are incapable of understanding or issuing a moral judgment of what torture really is. Starvation, child abuse and slavery, things that would horrify the political class here, are so common in the third world as to not elicit special notice. Sawing off heads is torture, mutilation, the rack, those things are torture. Water-boarding is not torture. Our political elite and their symboligists in the main stream media live lives sheltered by affluence and remote from any real risk or harm, beyond they own self destructive impulses (drugs, etc.). I do not depend upon their opinions or rationalizations for my protection. Nor should you. Wars are bloody businesses. You either win or disappear as a civilization. Asking others to subsidize your presumed moral superiority is cowardice.
#3
Well put, Black Cat. We are definitely on the same page here. Furthermore, I'd like to add that in the cases where we did waterboard detainees (all TWO of them), the "procedure" some have likened to drowning was only applied between 20-40 seconds at a time. If waterboarding does indeed simulate drowning, couldn't one be reasonably expected to hold their breath for 20-40 seconds at a time to counteract the effects of simulated drowning? And assuming they did so, how is that torture?
In any case, this is all nothing but a witch hunt against the very people who were desperately trying to keep us safe during incredibly trying times and demanding circumstances. What the Obama administration is doing here is nothing short of a travesty. It makes my blood boil. And if they really think they can get away with not releasing the memos that detail the intelligence that was gathered as a result of waterboarding, than I believe they will pay a very heavy price for their blatant politicization of a major, nay critical, national security issue. At the least, it will be a price paid at the polling booth and at worst, I fear it may be a price paid in American lives. Shame on you, President Obama. I hoped that you had more backbone than that but I'm glad I never believed you did because it saves me the disappointment.
On a related note, I've about had it with this "waterboarding IS torture" nonsense. Give me a break. In fact, I've actually considered offering up myself to be waterboarded on live TV for all the world to see if it would put an end to the whole silly debate. I'm willing to subject myself to a few minutes of gross discomfort and exceeding unpleasantness if it keeps us safer. I mean if Christopher Hitchens can make it through the ordeal alive and no worse for wear, it can't be all that bad, right?
Now that I think about it, perhaps this could be the basis for a non-profit, PAC, whatever... that invites people to sign up to get waterboarded in order to show their support for our national security policy during the Bush administration and refute the current administration's stance on the issue. I can see it now, a gathering on the mall, people are all lined up, and after you get waterboarded, you get a free t-shirt or bumper sticker for your pain and suffering, not to mention the satisfaction that you just contributed to the safety and well-being of all Americans. I think we could have a lot of fun with the t-shirts and bumper stickers.
So am I crazy or might this actually be a good idea?
#4
I think it's a brilliant idea, eltoreverde. I suspect it would be a big hit if offered to college fraternities and after football team practices, for a start. It would have to be run by experts, with a doctor and psychologist standing by for those who really couldn't handle the experience, but it would certainly appeal to the macho of both sexes and all genders. (Actually, I'm not quite sure what all the genders are, but that's ok -- the previous statement covers even my very real ignorance.)
BlackCat, I think the Anon4021's facepalm marks frustration with the stupidity of the bit copied to the post. Anon4021 has been posting here since before Mr. Pruitt invented his clever anonymizer with all the wonderful names.
#5
As an aside to this discussion, in which I overwhelmingly come down on the side of Jack Bauer in these matters, folks have wondered about the interestin about face that Zero made on this topic.
The calculus behind that change of position was precisely what has happened....
The evil Bush-Hitler/Cheney/Halliburton devils remain in the public arean to be flogged, and nobody notices the enormous failures in the making for this bank/auto manufacturer nationalization plan unfolding before our eyes.
The government will elect the board of directors for all of our major banks, making the entire credit market a slave to public policy this administration directs...
You don't need programs when the only sources of credit make ACORN creditworthy for private deposits. They effectively control the entire economy this way. Think about it, if your proposed housing project isn't green enough, no money. Want to buy a homehave you done enough volunteer service for the right folks?...
This is the real threat....the torture debate, sound and fury to feed the media and keep the citizens riled up at the evils of conservatives....
#6
The CIA are good people. I know this. And they are pissed off. Crossword puzzle time from one of the worlds premier risk manager. I wonder what the DNI has to say?
Throttled am I.
#7
I suspect there's a good many folks at Klingon Main that voted for Barry. They certainly had little good to say about President Bush. I say....Chickens home to roost.
Filed under WoT for reasons that you'll see. Sometimes Frum gets one right.
by David Frum
Sometimes in Washington, what is most scandalous is the attempt to create a scandal where none exists.
Let me give you a current example.
Maybe you've heard about an allegation of scandal against Jane Harman, the California Democrat who served with great distinction on the House Select Committee on Intelligence until Nancy Pelosi gave her the heave-ho.
The story is almost insanely complicated. But the deeper you delve into the details, the more you see that if there is any wrongdoing in the case, it was done by Harman's accusers.
Some background:
Elements within the FBI and other U.S. agencies have been convinced for years that Israeli spy agencies have penetrated the U.S. government. These anti-Israel elements responded with what spy types call a "mole hunt"--a ferocious search for the suspected infiltrator. Again and again, the search has turned up empty. But from the point of view of a mole hunter, nothing is more damning than the absence of evidence: The inability to discover the mole only proves the mole's vicious cunning!
Then, at last, in October 2005 the mole hunters found their man: a career Defense Department employee named Larry Franklin. Franklin's offense? Brace yourself ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/23/2009 09:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We have here a situation in which patriots are being treated like traitors--while people who have done the country more harm than many traitors are being treated like patriots."
The same could be said about the entire CIA memo debacle going on right now.
#2
These anti-Israel elements responded with what spy types call a "mole hunt"
Normally when the G-Men are tasked with ferreting out spies its called Counterespionage. But this operation was clearly run by anti-Israel elements. And we dont need our decoder rings to figure out what that means do we?
Lacking the clout to move the information himself, he [Franklin] decided to do what frustrated officials often do: He leaked it.
Yes, poor Larry was the simple middle manager type. And, motivated purely by virtue of patriotism, had no other choice but to leak classified intelligence to a foreign entity. Yes, technically, one might conclude that this is traditional spy-craft. But, given the circumstances, whats a loyal citizen supposed to do?
of course, the anti-Franklin prosecutors were convinced that Washington was half-filled with Israeli agents.
Can you believe it? The paranoia had reached such a fever pitch that the prosecutors had actually turned against the guy they were trying to convict.
The two, Steve Rosen and Kenneth Weissman, shared Franklin's information with journalists, colleagues, and the Israeli embassy.
Hey whats wrong with passing a little classified intelligence to the press, some coworkers, and maybe a foreign entity? Especially when that information will jolt an unwilling bureaucracy into action.
Damn you bureaucracies!
#3
Dunno. I read an earlier article on this which stated that the tapes had a conversation where she agreed to "see what she could do" for the spies in return for assistance in getting the Chairmanship and that this "discussion never occured".
Don't know if that's true or not - just selling it like I bought it. But if true, I don't have a lot of sympathy for her.
If true, since Pelosi was aware of the tapes, it might explain why Pelosi was so dead set against giving Harman the chaiman ship, tho; the Madam of House's final choice really sucked.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our countrys banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.
