[A-List] US - Ruling class faultline

["Stan Goff" <sherrynstan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

January 27, 2005

Scowcroft and Baker Up the Ante
The Widening Chasm Among Conservatives

By MIKE WHITNEY

The machinery of state decision-making is rarely exposed to public
scrutiny. The cover of representative government is a scrupulously
maintained fiction concealing the nuts-and-bolts of real statecraft.
Normally, politicians and their accomplices in the media can keep the
illusion of representative government intact; avoiding the embarrassing
implication that the current order is really upheld by the
decision-making of elites. It's only when a major rift appears between
the members of the ruling class that we have the opportunity to marvel
at the moving parts of the imperial apparatus.

The deteriorating situation in Iraq has precipitated this very scenario.
The rift we allude to, has, in fact, developed into a yawning chasm;
pitting one faction of conservative elder statesmen against their
antecedents in the Bush administration. This battle of the giants can be
expected to grow exponentially as the principle characters clash over
the future of the Iraq occupation.

On the one hand, we have perhaps the most widely respected
(conservative) policy experts alive today, advising the administration
to withdraw from Iraq. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft and James
Baker have joined the ranks of anti-war Leftists in calling for an
immediate withdrawal of all American troops. They have noted the failed
attempts by the Bush administration to establish even minimal security
or to achieve the overall objectives of the invasion. With Iraq tilting
precipitously towards civil war, and with America's prestige irreparably
damaged, their protestations should be regarded as an appeal for a
return to political sanity.

Clearly these staunch supporters of American supremacy would never
accept such a humbling defeat if there was even the remotest possibility
of success. This gives us some idea of the extent to which the media has
been concealing the crucial details of the disaster in Iraq from the
public. Even those who are most likely to benefit the most from regional
domination are jumping-off the sinking ship-of-state.

The significance of this rebellion among conservative members of the
ruling establishment can,t be overstated. The war in Iraq didn,t evolve
from a viable threat to national security, but from consensus among
elites that America's future depended on projecting power into the
Middle East. This is apparent in everything from the manipulation of
interest rates to accommodate aggression, to the fabricated threats
promoted by the corporate media, to the signatures of the 60 oil giants
(reported by Secretary of Treasury, Paul O, Neil) on Cheney's Energy
papers. (which divided up Iraqi oil fields months before the invasion)

Democracy: for elites, that is.

One of the illusions of American-style democracy is the notion that
policy is driven by the will of the people. Nothing could be further
from the truth. In fact, the entire corporate system of delivering
information ("the media") is predicated on the idea of selectively
creating a message that is compatible with the aims of elites. The
interests of the public are never seriously entered into the
policy-making equation, except in terms of how their approval can be
obtained through the normal channels of calculated misinformation.

Policy is shaped by elites, for elites. It only changes when particular
policies lose favor among the men who are ensconced at the foot of
power. That's what makes the Baker-Scowcroft-Brzezinski insurgency worth
noting; they point to the growing number of policy-wonks, corporate
big-wigs and political powerbrokers who no longer support the Iraq
occupation. Their position of influence and respect among their
colleagues would seem to make them the last best hope for
anti-occupation Americans.

James Baker who was instrumental in waging the legal battle that put G W
Bush in the White House, has said that continued American presence in
Iraq threatens to "undermine domestic support" and perpetuate the belief
in the region that Iraq is part of Washington's "imperial design".

Baker, a devoted Bush loyalist, has no problem with the morality of the
occupation, only with its efficacy. For him to suggest withdrawal is a
clear indication that the mission is unsalvageable.

Brent Scowcroft implicitly supports Baker's analysis. Scowcroft, who is
former National Security Advisor, served in both the H.W. Bush and
Gerald Ford administrations and has solid record of commitment to
conservative issues. Ideologically he is cut from the same cloth as
Bush, although the extremism of the neocons has created a significant
divide between old guard Republicans like Scowcroft and the new
establishment.

At a recent meeting of the New America Foundation, Scowcroft gave a
bitter critique of the Iraq conflict warning that the "war of choice"
was jeopardizing long-held alliances and endangering America's stature
in the world.

Scowcroft emphasized his deep misgivings about war by suggesting that we
should consider "whether we get out now" before more damage is done to
American credibility and prestige.

(Scowcroft also provided a withering summary of the Afghanistan debacle,
the likes of which have only previously appeared on Left-wing web sites.
He said, "We did not go into Afghanistan because it was Afghanistan, we
went in because it was the headquarters for Al Qaeda and the Taliban was
supporting Al Qaeda. And we have pretty well cleaned out the Taliban and
Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Now Afghanistan stands as it was when the
Soviet Union left"A FAILED STATE. And, one election a democracy does not
make.

We,ve been really lucky about Karzai, he turned out to be pretty good,
and rather lucky for us -- but he is still more the MAYOR OF KABUL than
he is the president of Afghanistan. The warlords are not only alive and
well, they are thriving and running much of that country.

They probably have at their disposal more resources than they ever had
before because Afghanistan is TURNING INTO A NARCO-STATE. We have
precious little experience in dealing with failed states and putting
them together we have to prevent it from receding back to the condition
it was in 94 when we gave up on it before and have it become a haven for
terrorism."

"Narco-state"? "Mayor of Kabul"? "Failed state" run by "warlords"? These
are the very same observations made by critics of the Afghanistan war
for more than three years. It is extraordinary to see that these SAME
VIEWS ARE SHARED BY REPUBLICAN INSIDERS behind closed doors. Although,
the media still characterizes Afghanistan as a Bush success, it's
refreshing to know that serious analysts are not similarly in denial.
Afghanistan has been a dismal failure; Scowcroft's comments only
reinforce that point.)

Zbigniew Brzezinski has provided an even more scathing appraisal of the
Iraq war. Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor for Jimmie
Carter, is widely regarded as one of the foremost authorities on
international affairs and foreign policy. Apart from being the architect
of America's clandestine war in Afghanistan in the 1980's (through the
funding and arming of Islamic militants) he's a master of American
Realpolitik and a Machiavellian-type strategist. His book "The Grand
Chessboard" provides the basic blueprint for American global domination
through projection of force into Eurasia and consolidating control over
Middle East oil in the Caspian Basin. The current imperial strategy
being carried out by the Bush White House is mainly Brzezinski's
invention.
Brzezinski's criticism was succinct and blistering: "A great deal of
what is happening thus far in American Foreign Policy has been
influenced by the ongoing conflict in Iraq. that war which was a war of
choice is already a serious moral set back to the United States. A moral
set-back both in how we start, how it was justified, and because of some
of the egregious incidents that have accompanied this proceeding. The
moral costs to the United States are high. It's a political setback.

The United States has never been involved in an intervention in its
entire history like it is today. It is also a military set back.
"Mission Accomplished" are words that many in this administration want
to forget.

While our ultimate objectives are very ambitious we will never achieve
democracy and stability without being willing to commit 500,000 troops,
spend $200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of
war compensation.

As a society, we are not prepared to do that  There comes a point in the
life of a nation when such sacrifices are not justified . . .and only
time will tell if the United States is facing a moment of wisdom, or is
resigned to cultural decay."

Brzezinski's is not a man given to rhetorical flights of fancy. He's
known for his bare-knuckle, "take-no-prisoners" Kissinger-style approach
to foreign policy. His denunciation of the war in Iraq as a "moral
setback" or, more significantly, as a sign of "MORAL DECAY" will be
construed by many political realists as a sign that we cannot succeed in
our stated goals.

Brzezinski's assessment of war extends far beyond the battlefield to its
devastating affect on America's "international legitimacy". As a sign of
how despised the Bush crusade has been around the world, Brzezinski
cites a poll taken earlier in the year that shows a vast number of
interviewees were disappointed "that more Americans were not killed" in
the invasion. Brzezinski opines, "That is some measure of the depth of
the animus to our policies."

As for Brzezinki's estimate of what it will take to succeed in Iraq
("500,000 troops, $200 billion a year, and a draft") it is an astute
approximation that is entirely consistent with the conclusions of many
in the Defense establishment, including General Shinseki who was removed
from duty for making similar calculations.

The broader issue, however, is summarized by the comments of James
Dobbins from the conservative Rand Corporation when he admitted, "THE
BEGINNING OF WISDOM IS TO REALIZE THAT WE CAN'T WIN" Dobbins remarks are
underscored by Iraq's Intelligence Chief, General Mohammed Shahwani
concession that the, "US was facing 40,000 hard-core fighters" and a
support group of as "many as 150,000 to 200,000".

Predictably, the story was buried in the western press, but the
implications are clear. The Pentagon has been lying to the American
people about the size and strength of the insurgency, (previous
estimates were between 5,000 to 20,000 total) and the likelihood of
winning the conflict is slim to none.

America's right-wing elite fully grasp the meaning of these numbers.
That's why retired General Gary Luck was sent to Iraq to provide a
comprehensive assessment of the current reality on the ground. Secretary
Rumsfeld knows full-well that Luck will return home with a detailed
analysis of a deteriorating security situation and a well rehearsed
appeal for more ground troops. Whether or not Luck's report will be the
basis for reinstating the draft is uncertain, but it will signal the
steady escalation of men and resources devoted to America's latest
quagmire.

The growing chasm between American elites will have no measurable affect
on the embattled White House. Already, the administration has announced
its intention to keep at least 120,000 troops deployed in Iraq for at
least the next three years. This is a clear message to the nay-sayers
that their advice has been duly rejected. As Donald Rumsfeld said just
recently, "There'll be no second guessing". The grand-plan to occupy
Iraq will continue and the voices of reason will be silenced.

By marginalizing Baker, Scowcroft and Brzezinski the administration is
severing relations with their ideological forebears. The project in Iraq
is now cut-off from the reasoned analysis of conservative policy experts
and is supported only by the hard-right ideology of political
extremists. As the ground is increasingly cut away from more and more of
the people who might provide some rational relief to the bloodletting;
the project becomes more infused with the incendiary rhetoric of
religiosity and nationalism. The crusade in Iraq is now propped up by
nothing more than the flimsy stanchions of hubris and delusion; the
foundation blocks of catastrophe.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at:
fergiewhitney@xxxxxxx