HIJACKING NATIONAL SECURITY: THE WAR PARTY
Who's flying the plane? --- The probable terrifying final thoughts of
many September 11, 2001 victims.
Today, many are asking the same thing about the Bush Administration's
subsequent foreign policy. Despite failing to secure Osama bin-Laden's
fate, the Administration now careens in search of ever-expanding
Executive Branch-initiated war against an "axis of evil." First
stop, Iraq.
Of course, there may be a case for war against Iraq. The benefit
potential for Iraq alone of ending the rule of Saddam Hussein is obvious.
But for those steering the policy, Iraq is only the beginning. And the
actual Iraq-specific case for war appears to be of secondary importance
to them at best.
Now, who's flying that plane?
President Bush remains the ultimate party responsible, but it is no
secret that a factional War Party has won the ears, hearts, and minds of
the President, Vice-President, National Security Adviser and Secretary of
Defense. As Scott Ritter, the Republican ex-Marine who hounded Saddam's
secret weapons group for several years, has warned:
"The national security of the United States of America has been
hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position
of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political
ambitions."
Ritter's warning may be understated. The neoconservatives, or
"neocons," are some of the most dangerous menaces to America's
destiny to come along. Moreover, they are a grave danger to the peace,
progress, and security of much of humanity. And their true agenda has
features of something that few, if any, have called by a designation that
is as alarming as it is accurate: a cult.
Neoconservatism is not merely an ideology, but a cult of war and
domination that makes conventional and even ideological "hawks"
and "interventionists" look like doves and isolationists. Many
of their fellow conservatives fear their aims. For if successful, the
neocons' efforts will provoke far more terrorism, leave enormous numbers
of Americans and foreigners dying uselessly in endless far-flung wars,
trip-up the world's already struggling economy, and midwife a
Constitution-shelving national security state.
Outlines of this are seen in a open-ended conflict, military activism
which has eschewed Congressional debate and oversight, spikes in oil
prices, domestic spying proposals, secret tribunals, citizen detentions
without trial, and surging ethnic and religious hatred.
So, what is it that makes these neocons tick? What lies at their core?
There's a single, easy-to-find, and utterly frightening answer to that.
THE BIZARRE CORE OF NEOCONSERVATISM
The single thread can be found, explicit and implicit, in neocon writings
and sentiments. These are worth a read, if only to see that the fate of
the world may be in the hands of people who are not only dangerous, but
actually use the word "hegemon" in conversation.
In an essay in Foreign Affairs in 1996 ("Toward a Neo-Reaganite
Foreign Policy" July-August 1996), neocon gurus William Kristol and
Robert Kagan described their desired goal.
They are seekers of a "global hegemon [ruler]." (Elsewhere
neocon writer Charles Krauthammer has called for embracing a
"unipolar world".) This world-encompassing hegemon would
possess a moral "exceptionalism", i.e. distinct essential moral
superiority. It would establish "moral clarity and purpose". It
would go forth (hegemonically, we must presume) and find "monsters
to destroy". Once empowered, this world-ruler would exercise
"benevolent ...hegemony." Nevertheless those otherwise good
people who don't actively aid the world-saving hegemon's monster-slaying
are guilty of "cowardice and dishonor".
Hang on, it gets weirder.
"The end of history" is how neocon author Francis Fukuyama in
his book of the same title has called the period after the collapse of
the hegemon's main enemy. William Kristol's father Irving has revealed in
his autobiography ("Memoirs of a Trotskyist") that the neocons
in their original incarnation saw themselves as the "`happy few' who
had been chosen by History to guide our fellow creatures toward a secular
redemption."
To find the common thread, we need only connect the dots:
A "benevolent global hegemon" of essentially superior moral
character? Who destroys monsters to create a "unipolar world,"
and imposes "moral clarity" and "purpose"? Who ushers
in "the end of history"? Whose acolytes are a vanguard in the
militant salvific redemption of the world? What to call such a being?
One word comes to mind . . . a Messiah. And a pretty darn utopian and
apocalyptic one at that. That is no exaggerated extrapolation of their
vision. And so it is no exaggeration to employ the term "cult."
(Recently, writer Thomas Bray in the online Wall Street Journal referred
to the Administration�s goals for Iraq as "messianic".)
The next question: who or what is the neocon's Messiah? Lyndon LaRouche?
Leon Trotsky? No. Despite some neocons' earlier affiliations with the
aforementioned, the movement is not so crude, nor avowedly illiberal or
antidemocratic. The cultic Messiah is an institution. Kristol and Kagan
tell us which institution.
The honor of benevolent global hegemony, they write, is to be
"America's role." Global redemption will come through
"actively promot[ing ] American principles of governance
abroad." Krauthammer's "unipolar world" means the period
of American sole superpowerhood. The "moral clarity" Kristol
and Kagan seek is therefore one that forced -- hegemonically -- upon
benighted humanity by the U.S. federal government.
The militarism is real. Charles Krauthammer has recently postulated as
constituting one distinctively "conservative" (as opposed to
"liberal" ) value: "military power". This is far more
than the conservative ideal of strong national defense or honoring
military service. The explicit adulation of military power as an end is a
new, i.e. "neo-," twist to conservatism, though left-wing
critics may not initially notice that.
Meanwhile, neocon Eliot Cohen, in a book the President has very recently
read, lionizes historic political leaders who overrule the caution of
their professional military establishments. Neocon heroes are those who
outwarrior the warriors.
Inspired by the age-old impulse for a political Messiah, the
neoconservatives seek to self-righteously impose world redemption through
militant imperial American federal government power. In effect then, they
are America's Messianic War Cult. And so, after the Twin Towers have
fallen, the neocons turn to empire state building.
And God help those "evildoers" who disagree or stand in the
way.
The neocons have the energy, and now with Administration allegiance, the
firepower to pursue these goals in deadly earnest. Their vision is not
limited government conservatism, nor even Big Government left-liberalism.
It is Limitless Government insanity.
Predictably enough, cult-like language (e.g. "evildoers") has
cropped up in the President's speeches post-9/11. The 2002 State of the
Union speech gave us the "axis of evil". That phrase did not
come from Christian Evangelical speech-writers as one might expect, but
from the neoconnish David Frum. We also increasingly hear a regular
insistence upon, rather than a mere responsible recognition of, America's
place of leadership in the world.
We have met the hegemony, and he is us.
THE PROBLEMS WITH MESSIAHS
Many may well ask: what's wrong with a little American Messianism? Real
monsters are out there and they've come here, drawing much innocent
blood. Our values are good for us and the world. Isn't it time for
righteous rage?
Rage is one thing, justice another, freedom still another. Nevertheless,
they can work together. Hunting a monster who attacked us is a valid use
of power to seek justice, protect our freedom, and express our rage. But
Messianic missions are wholly different and wholly dangerous.
First of all, Messiahs are best left to God (atheists: insert "if
any," here). A genuine Messiah is divinely anointed. Secular ones
typically bring with them power-madness, statist totalitarianism, and a
penchant for deadly conquest. The fact that the neocon Messiah is the
United States national government, and the Messianic rule to be imposed
is theoretically liberal democracy, serves as no comfort. Secular
Messiahs -- and false religious ones for that matter -- are not known for
moral or intellectual consistency.
Lenin was an egalitarian liberator who set up an elitist slave-state.
Hitler was a white Germanic pagan racist socialist who nonetheless
collaborated with capitalist industrialists, promulgated aristocratic
Russian Christian anti-Semitism, and allied himself with Asiatics. Osama
bin-Laden purported to be a holy warrior of a religion whose tradition
has prided itself on the idea of not waging war on innocents among the
enemy.
In earlier incarnations, the neoconservatives in the Reagan
Administration seemed to care little for the liberal democracy they claim
to revere. This was exemplified by their attitude towards Latin American
states allied with the neocons' Messianic twist on Cold War
anti-Communism. Jeane Kirkpatrick, to cite one neocon case, seemed never
to have met an Argentine junta she did not like. Even when they invaded
the Falklands, cultivated fascist ideology, and made numerous dissidents
"disappear.".
Political Messianism is hypocritical and dangerous. It first cultivates a
visionary ideal for ruling others. Then it acts on that ideal with
singular ruthlessness. America should subscribe to neither practice.
IRAQ ATTACK: MESSIAHS DON'T NEED PERMISSION
Returning to the immediate issue of war with Iraq, we should consider
that any valid case stands on its own merits regardless of personal and
cultic neocon ambitions. Nevertheless, the neocons seem to feel little
need to make a persuasive case on the merits regarding invading Iraq. The
Administration in turn has only offered to the nation and world pro forma
recitations of Saddam Hussein`s known old sins, combined with speculation
and threats. The President's statements at the United Nations on
September 12 persisted in the failure to go beyond that.
The neoconservatives' Messianic core helps explain this widely noted
failure to make a case. In their view, America's right and might to
invade and overthrow foreign regimes is a matter of Messianic faith.
Therefore, the only issue is one of shoring up American resolve, i.e. the
zeal of the acolytes, not the essential moral and practical issues of
American vital interests, regional realism, international law, the needs
of and for allies, and the problems of military contingency.
That is why neocon cheerleaders seem to be devoting more time and space
to encouraging bellicose Administration threats and shouting down critics
like New York Times editor Howard Raines and retired General Brent
Scowcroft. For the neocons, their Messianic cultism makes it not merely
likely, but also downright preferable, that we act without
proffering a justification to other powers. After all, the job
description for "hegemons" and "Messiahs" doesn't
include asking for permission, forgiveness, or help.
As we can see from a look at the record:
* An insider who knows several neocons in the Administration describes
them in a September 11 New York Times article as having "a pervasive
philosophy of `We have to do what we think is right, ... and when it
comes out, the rest of the world will know it's right, too.' "
* "We've got influence, power, prestige, and clout beyond any nation
in the history of the world," boasted Richard Armitage, a moderately
neoconnish State Department Deputy Secretary of State, to the Washington
Post. "It brings forth a certain amount of envy."
* "We are the one truly revolutionary country on Earth," neocon
Michael Ledeen chimed in on CNBC recently, braying for war with Iraq, and
apparently channeling Leon Trotsky circa 1919. And that revolutionary
nature would be "the reason we will successfully transform the
lives...of millions in the Middle East."
As such statements reveal, superclout brings forth a certain amount of
hubris, as well as envy. Like that seen before Vietnam. Weren't we
revolutionary then too? Transforming lives through ever-increasing land
war in Asia?
Neocon Messianism seeks "monsters to destroy" abroad. Yet, even
as Saddam is added to the list of beasts, bin-Laden and/or his deadly
acolytes remain undestroyed after a year. And the threat they pose has
not merely been abroad. The neocons' hubris has blinded them to
addressing obvious problems in America's reach and prioritization.
ENDLESS WARS OF INTRIGUE: A CONSERVATIVE ANSWERS THE NEOCONS
The best response to the neocons was written in 1997 by Reaganite
conservative author William McDougall
{http://www.fpri.org/pubs/nightthoughts.199712.mcdougall.neoconswrong.html},
in a reply to neocons Kristol and Kagan. McDougall's words of wisdom were
joined with those of John Quincy Adams, our 19th Century President, and
prove remarkably prophetic about post-9/11 America, the Executive
Branch's unilateral actions regarding Iraq, and the neocons.
First, McDougall addressed the issue of Executive-Branch unilateral
tactics:
Woodrow Wilson's complaint [was] that the only way for a president to
"compel compliance" from Congress is to get the nation into
"such scrapes" and make such "rash promises" abroad
that the Senate cannot disavow him without shaming the United
States....
McDougall adds that those are the tactics preferred by the neocons.
The [neoconservatives issue] a clarion call that would appear to
invite [those] scrapes and rash promises [when they write]: "John
Quincy Adams [admonished] that America ought not 'go abroad in search of
monsters to destroy.' But why not? The alternative is to leave monsters
on the loose, ravaging and pillaging to their heart's
content...."
McDougall proceeds to answer Kristol and Kagan's "why not seek out
monsters to destroy" in a manner that is both stark and eloquent as
a warning:
[If] you go abroad in search of monsters, you will invariably find
them even if you have to create them. You will then fight them, whether
or not you need to, and you will either come home defeated, or else so
bloodied that the American people will lose their tolerance for
engagement altogether, or else so victorious and full of yourself that
the rest of the world will hate you and fear that you'll name them the
next monster.
McDougall is also quick to add in his prophetic piece that John Quincy
Adams himself was not out of date in his expressed fear of global
monster-hunting. In fact, Adams realistically and also prophetically
appraised the attraction and hazards of the overextension of American
government power.
The reason not to [search out monsters] is that to do so [Adams says]
"would involve the United States beyond the power of extrication, in
all the wars of interest and intrigue, avarice, envy, and ambition. . . .
America might become the dictatress of the world, but she would no longer
be the ruler of her own spirit."
The understandable passions of post-9/11 -- rage against hostile
Mideasterners, fear among frustrated Midwesterners, a unifying awakening
of national purpose -- give the neocons cover for their cultish
ideological coup to remake us into an endlessly warring Messianic
dictatress of the world.
Enter then "all the wars of interest and intrigue, avarice, envy,
and ambition, beyond the powers of extrication . . . ." Iraq may the
first of many of these.
The ultimate price may be nothing less than mass destruction of lives and
nations, the needless death of our best and bravest, the loss of the
grudging respect we still command, and the irretrievable conversion of
the United States into an imperial war state of limitless government for
whom the phrase "land of the free" will become merely a battle
cry, full of sound and fury.
Signifying nothing.
http://www.spectacle.org/1002/hogan.html
