I just returned home from class and checked the Times website. This article was part of the headlines. I haven't even read it yet, but I don't really need to.
The people behind Bush II are the same people who were behind Bush I, and they're the same people that were behind Reagan. Georgie W gets a lot of slack for being barely engaged in substantive policy debate and discussion, and also for being just a little lacking in the intellectual department. The truth is that Reagan was very much the same way. Although he was a much better speaker - he could skillfully spin things without stuttering through cliched expressions - Reagan was not a brilliant guy. We have much more to fear from those that lurk behind the scenes and actually construct the policies that the leaders are obliged to sell.
What's going on now, and what has been going on since 9/11, is simply a return to basic strategy by those working behind the scenes. Bush has sold us on war in perpetuity - the glorious "War on Terror." To paraphrase Orwell from his masterwork - 1984 (actually the same passage that concludes Fahrenheit 9/11, which was probably the best and most ominous part of that film) - it doesn't really matter who the enemy is, as long as there is an enemy. As long as the war continues, citizens will turn in their liberties willingly, believing that they are only doing their part - their patriotic duty. 9/11 was a necessary catalyst for those that truly hold the power behind the facade of our government. I'm not sure Clinton would have won if the Soviet Union still existed in 1992, and if Gorbachev hadn't brought in reforms like perestroika and glasnost, it's almost certain that Bush would have been granted a second term.
The true policy-makers need an external enemy. I'm talking here about the individuals that make up the "conservative think-tanks" that you hear about. They're not necessarily socially conservative, but they view the Bible-thumping horde as a useful tool - an ally to help them reach their objective. Of course the war on terror is a sham. The budget that Bush has submitted is heavy on military spending and it slashes social programs. Is anyone surprised? This perpetual war is a fantastic excuse to dump billions into the "military-industrial complex." More bombers, better bombs, more recruiters. See one of the sub-headings on the front page of the Times? It says U.S. Redesigning Atomic Weapons. It's an article about the aging US nuclear arsenal. Apparently, we need to upgrade many of our 10,000 warheads. Otherwise, we might find that they're not reliable - and we wouldn't want to find that out when we really "need" them.
When are we going to need them?
There were significant discussions about the viability of using "tactical nuclear weapons" in the Iraq war. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for “Forces Policy" under Rumsfeld is a guy named Keith Payne. In 1980, he co-authored a paper that appeared in Foreign Policy magazine. The article's title? "Victory is Possible." Essentially, the article's aim was to take the taboo out of using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive first strike against the USSR. Here's a disturbing piece of the article: "an intelligent United States offensive strategy, wedded to homeland defenses, should reduce U.S. casualties to approximately 20 million … a level compatible with national survival and recovery."
What was the response to this kind of talk? Was Payne dismissed as psychotic and sent to an asylum? Of course not. Now he's helping to shape our national policy. Check this article out, because otherwise I'm going to be writing a lot that will just be paraphrasing. The article was written in May 2003, but the main points are still valid. Even though we didn't go nuclear in the Iraq war, there are people in important positions working to remove the stigma of using nuclear weapons in the future.
And we want other nations to get rid of their weapons of mass destruction? Why? Well, obviously it's because we're the only responsible nation - the one that can be trusted with such weapons to use them only when they're necessary. When are they necessary? Well, when we say they're necessary, of course.
Absurdity.
Well, I have some actual work to do, so I should get going on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment