"1814" By Meissonier
Click here to view larger image
 
Napoleon returning from Soissons after the battle of Laon. Titled "1814" . "It is conceivable that Meissonier's conception of Napoleon is the basis of the popular fancy that people in institutions, suffering delusions of grandeur, inevitably stand all day with their right hand clutching at their hearts through the second and third buttons of their jackets." (Rockwell Kent)
 
On Globalization:
Imperium in Imperio -- A State Within a state

By Craig B Hulet?

 


This guerrilla war is likely to last a generation

"We have a soldier wounded or killed every other day" in the Baghdad area.
"Is it slowing us down? Yes, because some soldiers
who would otherwise be doing reconstruction,
we have to use for security.
Every attack means we're going to have to be here a little longer."
Maj. Scott Slaten

Top Picture: Iraq, New Humvee -- Bottom: Wrecked humvee in Iraq

By Craig B Hulet? 08/15/03

In a most audacious attack on American troops, an Iraqi fired a rocket-propelled grenade from the sunroof of a Chevrolet car at a passing patrol yesterday, incinerating one of the army vehicles and seriously wounding four of those traveling in the convoy. (TimesOnline, 7/2/03)


Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defense Secretary, insisted
“that Iraq was not a new Vietnam,” there are no jungles there!
7/2/03

Its all over the press now. America is facing an intensifying urban guerrilla war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That it is coordinated and has leadership and organization is being debated so as to not admit the obvious: That this was the strategy of both the Taliban and the Republican Guard of Iraq. They number in the tens of thousands. Craig B Hulet has argued in numerous interviews and several white papers and in his latest book the following: to defeat an entrenched enemy that will fight a guerrilla war, the attacking force must have at least a ten to one ratio in favor of the attackers. That we are hopelessly outnumbered in both countries means quite literally we cannot defeat these guerrilla forces. We will lose. We will have to increase the number of troops to even stay stationed in these countries. Precisely as the war in Vietnam escalated from some 50 “Advisors” under president Kennedy to an incremental increase every year to 1.3 million American troops fighting Ho Chi Minh’s forces, we will have to do the same; or we can leave now.

The press is today filling-up with reports that the Pentagon is puzzled by these events particularly in Iraq:

 

07/01/03: BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops in Iraq are getting ambushed everywhere and every day - while guarding gas stations, investigating car thefts or on their way to make phone calls home. Each new attack is raising questions about whether the violence is a last gasp from Saddam Hussein loyalists or signs of a spreading revolt. The Pentagon is puzzling over how many resisters there are, how well they are organized and how they can be stopped. Private risk analysts are warning of an even chance of Iraq descending into open revolt. And although the term is rarely used at the Pentagon, from every description by military officials, what U.S. troops face on the ground in Iraq has all the markings of a guerrilla war - albeit one in which there are multiple opposition groups rather than a single movement. (Source: “Iraqi attacks could signal wide revolt” The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times, 7/2/03)

Puzzling over this? This was planned by Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard just as it was planned by Mullah Omar Mohammad of the Taliban. They melted into the population in the face of the American ground forces rather than (stupidly) stand and fight the most formidable conventional military forces on earth. As they would put it on one of TV’s insufferable SitComs, “It’s a no-brainer.” So rather than admit that they knew this was going to come to pass, as this analyst predicted over and over since September 20, 2001 (during my first national radio interview), they are arguing over who it is they might be fighting, who the opposition might be, who the bad guys are? The media puts it all rather blandly as well, because they were the cheerleaders stacking the deck in favor of war. Here is how one reporter reported it:

 

Certainly, the statistics paint a worrisome picture. Since President Bush declared an end to the major combat phase of the war on May 1, 62 U.S. troops have been killed, according to a count based on Defense Department press releases. Of those, 22 died as a result of enemy attacks, 36 in accidents and four in incidents whose cause is under investigation....More revealing, however, is that the number of deaths from hostile fire is on the rise. Six Americans were killed in May in enemy attacks, while 16 had died in June as of midnight Saturday. Until the past few days, U.S. military officials had insisted that the attacks were merely a product of the final rooting out of the remnants of Saddam’s regime. Now they are beginning to float the idea that U.S. forces face several different opposition forces - and military experts outside the government concur with that assessment. (Ibid.)

In that same article they refer to the guerrillas as a “spectrum of resistance,” to sublimate the reality that it is clearly organized and deliberate. “There are disgruntled Iraqis, upset about house searches or whatever, who might throw rocks or the occasional grenade,” said retired Maj. Gen.. “Disgruntled” over “whatever”...? This valley-girl response is hardly befitting a commander of dead and more to come, dying troopers! At the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations, William Nash, now a senior fellow there finally put it together after much deep-thinking “And at the other end of the spectrum, there are members of the old regime, reinforced by foreign fighters, that are looking more organized every day.” There are foreign fighters in Afghanistan; there are foreign fighters in every Arab, Muslim or Persian state in the entire Middle East! That is what Pan-Arabism means in this context, it wasn’t just a dead dream of Egypt’s Anwar Sadat. On the other hand WE are the real Foreign Fighters in the region.

On occasion we get a stunning example of understatement like Nash’s further remarks; commenting on what took place over the weekend of the 6/26/03, where on Saturday, U.S. forces found the bodies of two U.S. soldiers who disappeared with their Humvee while on guard duty at a captured munitions storage depot. Nash suggested that “those killings appear to have been carried out with ‘the upper levels of sophistication,’ [as] it is a difficult operation to snatch an enemy combatant and his equipment,” he noted.

There are some who feel like, that conditions are such
that they can attack us there,..
My answer is bring them on.

--President George Bush Jr. 7/2/03

I am continually at a loss as to why the press will not do their job this year. Ask the tough questions and act like the fourth estate they used to be (prior to 9/11 that is). Instead it was reported in these words “Nonlethal grenade and small-arms attacks also appear to be continuing unabated.”... “We have a soldier wounded or killed every other day” in the Baghdad area, said Maj. Scott Slaten, a public-affairs officer for the 1st Armored Division, which has responsibility for Iraq’s capital. “Is it slowing us down? Yes, because some soldiers who would otherwise be doing reconstruction, we have to use for security. Every attack means we're going to have to be here a little longer.” Nonlethal grenades? I spent a good amount of time in Vietnam 1969-1970 (101st Airborne) and I do not recall seeing what could be described as a nonlethal grenade, let alone any “nonlethal small-arms.” “Is it slowing us down”? Well no kidding, it certainly slowed down the dead guys.

"We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or... kill them until we have imposed law and order on this country. We dominate the scene and we will continue to impose our will on this country."
--Paul Bremer, Washington’s overlord in Iraq 6/29/03

Not even General Westmoreland would have made such a declaration in the 1960s as he was a statesman soldier unlike our current crop of apparatchiks. In Vietnam there was a joke told regularly that when you went to Vietnam you could tell who Charlie was because he’d be wearing black pajamas; of course everyone was wearing black pajamas! That was the punch line. We seem to have learned little because...

 

For troops on the ground, there is a constant, uneasy sense that nothing and no one are what they seem. Civilians have approached checkpoints and lobbed grenades, and canvas-sided Humvees have become a hazard. “You’re not sure who your enemy is,” said Army Sgt. Gary Qualls, who is stationed at the U.S. military’s base in Ramadi, a town in the heart of the Sunni area north and west of Baghdad long loyal to Hussein. “You don't know who to trust.” (Ibid.)

What was these troop’s briefing before being deployed? What are they being told now?
Still, military officials say they believe the security situation overall has improved in the country. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked Friday (6/27/03) if the fighting was turning into a guerrilla war, replied: “I don't know that I would use the word.” Really? This man should retire as his senility is showing. Maybe “he” wouldn’t use that word...but then he did say he “don’t know” if he would use it...so maybe he is just confused and not senile. So he can stay in charge then.

Asserting who's in charge
The story gets even better the more the press presses the issue, issuing these further comments: “However, military experts both inside and outside the Pentagon said they fear the U.S. has failed to assert itself strongly enough on the ground in Iraq because of political pressure to send a message that American forces would leave the country as soon as possible. That may have led the opposition to try to speed the U.S. military’s departure, and each successful killing or act of sabotage becomes an advertisement to recruit more foot soldiers for the resistance.” Failed to assert itself strongly enough...”? We bombed them into the stone age and stood by and watched them destroy all records of who the Iraqi army, the Republican Guard in particular, were made up of, and went straight for their oil! It was precisely what we have “strongly” done and will do as occupying foreign forces which has brought a guerrilla war to us.

 

“Clearly, they are emboldened by success,” said a senior military official in Washington. “You have to go in and tell them: ‘Were gonna do what we did in Germany and Japan. We’re gonna write your constitution. We’re gonna install your government. We’re gonna write your laws. We’re gonna watch your every move for a decade, and then maybe you’ll get a chance to do it yourself.’” (Ibid.)

Who is WE? Who are these people saying these things? “WE” are going to do nothing of the sort. We are going to likely lose this war and an awful lot of young men and women the world over shall most certainly die for “our” strategic energy needs and hegemonic ambitions. But the message gets better the more one reads these reports in the submissive press:

 

The limited resistance put up by Iraqi military forces during major combat operations may also be having an impact. “It may sound a little strange to say it, but because we didn’t fight in Fallouja and Tikrit, probably the ‘bad guys’ have made it back into the community and we’re going to have to move them out,” a senior Bush administration official said recently. (Ibid.)

That clever Nash, of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the United States missed the window to establish itself as the unequivocal authority when the war ended. “When Baghdad fell is when you establish yourself; it’s when you set the rules. If you miss the opportunity to do it then, it’s not impossible, but it’s harder,” he said. “Resistance feeds resistance - the bad guys have had a chance to get organized.” Baghdad didn’t fall and we didn’t win the war. The Republican Guard and the Iraqi army didn’t fight us. They wisely and tactically never tried because they were already under instructions to fight a guerrilla war forever against the occupying foreign forces! That was the strategy all along. (As I reported over and over again in the media since September 20, 2001; I hate to belabor that point, but if I knew these things, then the Pentagon knew, then Bush and Rumsfeld knew; that is the point, not that I‘m such a smart guy! but they knew all along.) In a separate account it was admitted. But I have yet to see it repeated nor analyzed anywhere else.

 

Allied officials now believe that a document recently found in Iraq detailing an ‘emergency plan’ for looting and sabotage in the wake of an invasion is probably authentic. It was prepared by the Iraqi intelligence service in January and marked ‘top secret.’ It outlined 11 kinds of sabotage, including burning government offices, cutting power and communication lines and attacking water purification plants. What gives the document particular credence is that it appears to match exactly the growing chaos and large number of guerrilla attacks on coalition soldiers, oil facilities and power plants.(Source Washingtonpost.com 6/26/03)

Can Rumsfeld continue to evade the obvious and suggest still that “I wouldn‘t know that I would use that word...”? the “G” word. Guerrilla War. In Europe they use the word because that is what is happening. Can the Pentagon still claim this is some unorganized “resistance” supported by outside foreign assets? Well, yes indeed the Pentagon, after the above report was public, did precisely that:

Now is the most dangerous time since we’ve been here. It’s not like when we were first here--pushing forward, shooting at everyone who had a gun,” said Staff Sgt. Zachary Conklin of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. “You get attacked, but there’s no definite enemy. You can’t shoot at all the civilians.”... “Many times, they’d been there--waving, saying hello, watching us,” Spec. Joseph Broullard said. “Then they were shooting at us.” (Source: 6/ 29/2003, Chicago Tribune) “It’s being planned and being planned well by small groups,” a U.S. official said. “But we don’t see a real command-and-control structure.”(Source: 6/27/03 washingtonpost.com , Iraqi Ambushes Beset Troops, By Peter Finn)

Where, in South Vietnam, China in the 30s, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Bolivia and for that matter the American “revolutionary” forces fighting a guerrilla war against the British did they “see” a command-and-control structure? You don’t see a control center in a guerrilla war whether with jungles or an urban community. That is the whole point of the above document unearthed in Iraq reported above. All the evidence strikes a chord with those who have served in the military in combat against a guerrilla army.

 

There’s some evidence that some Islamist groups are forming in some instances tactical alliances with remnants of the former regime or simply acting on their own. And also, of course, we have the tribal factor, which means there are a number of tribes who were armed by the regime in the couple of years or so preceding the fall of it and these tribes indeed may be providing protection for some senior regime figures -- even possibly Saddam himself.” (Source: 6/29/03, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc., http://www.rferl.org Iraq: ‘Operation Sidewinder’ Attempting To Root Out Insurgents By Valentinas Mite)

Not only is one American dying each day now in either Iraq or Afghanistan or both, but many more wounded. Some former U.S. National Guardsmen are asking the right questions though having never served in combat. For instance from the reports in the press we are seeing troops being killed while making a phone call home, or shopping in Baghdad! To wit:

A U.S. soldier was shot in the head while buying digital video discs at a shop in Baghdad on Friday, the shop owner and other witnesses said. (BAGHDAD Reuters 6/27/02) Response:

 


“Such B.S, how is it credible to call this growing and obvious guerrilla war a last gasp of Saddam Hussein?? I heard Bremer say this morning something like a pathetic last gasp of Hussein loyalists!! Our soldiers are being picked off like sitting ducks. Why the hell is the command letting these guys go fucking shopping, or making phone calls in a hostile environment?? Where are their platoon leaders, their Top?? I don’t understand why they haven’t protected them, why aren’t they in garrison. Do they want to fill up the body bags? I don’t get it. (Source: KC&A client [former NG] responding to the above article, CW, Seattle WA, 7/1/03)

In Iraq, years of vilification of the United States have compounded Iraqi uncertainty about U.S. intentions, a problem complicated further by the United States’ backtracking on promises to let Iraqis choose their own new government. This same problem is to be found in Afghanistan where the Taliban are flooding back into the region and warlords are bringing the guerrilla war to Kabul. The Post reports that “The situation is worsened by the continuing communications difficulties of the U.S.-led occupation authority, which still has trouble reaching Iraqis with basic information because of weak television signals and the limited access of many Iraqis to mass media. Furthermore, many members of the sizable Sunni minority, who prospered under Saddam Hussein, perceive themselves as losing rather than gaining ground as a result of the U.S. presence and are willing to offer tacit, if not outright, support for those who want to actively fight the U.S.-led troops.” (Source: “Iraqi attacks could signal wide revolt” The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times, 7/2/03) “The Sunni population has every reason to destabilize the situation, since they know that when there are elections, they are going to get the short end of the stick,” said Charles Pena, director of defense policy studies at the Washington-based Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. (Ibid.)

In an effort to put a different face on what is clearly identifiable as a strategically planned and now tactically implemented guerrilla war the press scours the sod for sop, experts of every stripe are asked the same questions and the most absurd responses are printed. Those who say, no, we are facing a well-armed, well-planned, long term guerrilla war which was inevitable, are ignored.

Here is what a recent LA Times article concluded from the experts regarding who we are facing. The subtitle to the piece was “Three opposition factions” It begins with this intellectual hogwash, “At the Pentagon and the White House and among military experts, there is a growing consensus that there are at least three forces involved in efforts to destabilize the country: Saddam loyalists, foreign fighters and those angry at living conditions since U.S.-led forces routed the Saddam regime....” The first group is outlined as such:

 

Discontented members of Saddam’s ruling Baath party, especially in the area of central Iraq known as the Sunni triangle, have the money to finance a resistance. Also present are a number of Fedayeen, paramilitary fighters loyal to Hussein who underwent brutalizing military training designed to inure them to the horrors of assassination. The combination of money to pay for the attacks and fighters to carry them out is a dangerous mix. (Ibid.)

This is an effort to make it seem as though these “discontented” wealthy individuals must pay other “followers” to act as mercenaries to fight on their own soil rather than the reality: i.e., they are military personnel fighting a guerrilla war against their foreign occupiers! Unbelievable! they base this on the following “evidence”...

 

There have been at least two execution-style attacks in the past two weeks in which U.S. soldiers who were talking with or helping civilian Iraqis were shot at close range near the base of the neck. In one case, in which a soldier was helping Iraqis line up to buy cooking fuel, the shooting was lethal; in the second attack, which occurred Friday as the soldier considered buying some DVD movies in a crowded shopping area, the soldier was critically wounded. (Ibid.)

Because there were a couple of “execution style” killings this provides these high-brow thinkers to discern a trend that means not guerrillas but criminal mafia type resistance.

 

“We ended major combat operations because the Iraqi army had disappeared, but what we don’t have is the Saddam Fedayeen and Baath leadership, who are trying to disrupt the coalition efforts,” said a senior military official in Iraq. Nash believes “that there is enough residual regime in place that they are starting to build a constituency.”

Add to that kind of thought process Paul Bremer, the chief US administrator in Iraq said the “violence [ which has killed at least 29 US and British soldiers since President George W. Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1] - showed the “desperation” of “members of the ex-regime” and “terrorists with connections to Iran, al-Qaeda and other countries in the region.” (Source: FT.com, 7/1/03: “Bremer pushes on despite attacks on US forces” Gareth Smyth) To continue to delude themselves is one thing but to delude the American people further about where this war is taking us is critical and dangerous in the extreme. This idea that many of the guerrilla attacks are terrorists persists in the media. From the same LA Times article the second group of these so-called “opposition factions” and “residual regime” is looked at .

 

The second group, foreign fighters, encompass both anti-American al-Qaida-type characters from Syria and Jordan, among other nations, as well as possible agents provocateurs from Iran, who may be fomenting trouble in Shiite Muslim-dominated southern Iraq. Just last week, Iraqi police in Baghdad picked up a group of Palestinians and Jordanians, now being held for questioning by the Americans. Military officials acknowledge that they have little control of the Iraqi borders. (Ibid.)

This argument that foreigners from outside Iraq, “al Qaida type characters, are to blame for some of the attacks, while this may be true, is nonsensical in the context of the Middle East. In Afghanistan fighters came from all over the world including America, China and from all parts of Europe and Africa. Indeed, over 60 countries were represented at some level. It was known, should have been known by all, that if we attacked Iraq, as in Afghanistan, the same would take place. And it is going on in Afghanistan again tonight. This is not an anomaly where “outsiders” are agitators, but the expected outcome of our presence in the Middle East, anywhere in the Middle East.

The third group is a hodgepodge of common criminals and people frustrated with the lack of services. Saddam released large numbers of prisoners last fall during a general amnesty. Iraqis say the Americans should not be surprised by the violence directed toward them. “It was predictable,” said Iraqi political scientist Saad al-Jawwad. “To any man or any woman or anybody who’s living in despair, what could he do? He has nothing left but to carry arms and defy the people who are here occupying his country and doing nothing for him or his family. Where is democracy? Nonexistent. Where is stability? Nonexistent. Where's electricity? Where's water? “What do you expect these people to do? To keep on sitting like sheep?” said al-Jawwad. “Of course they would organize themselves, and they will get more organized and more organized.”...“And that will develop into a revolt,” he predicted. (Ibid.)

Here is another example of obfuscation and deliberate deception on the part of the media and the Administration’s spokesmen. Every guerrilla army finds its recruits from the angry civilian population and those who feel the unjust “footprint” (in the newest Pentagon jargon) of the American occupying forces. It is a popular resistance that makes up a guerrilla army backed by professional soldiers who are, as well, disgruntled with the occupation of their country. To call these guerrillas “criminals” and the “frustrated” because of lack of “services,” is disgraceful! But to add to the mix the blame placed on Saddam Hussein because he released prisoners in a general amnesty is raw propaganda directed at the ignorant.

Kroll, a U.S.-based corporate risk consulting company, told its clients that an Iraqi revolt against occupying forces was one of two most likely scenarios in 2003. The other was a so-called wobbly landing, with some instability but not outright revolt. They are going to persist in calling this “guerrilla war” a revolt, or saboteurs, foreign agitation and pathetic remnants of Saddam’s “followers,” i.e., the last gasp theory. We will find this is a growing guerrilla war with all of the main components in place, planned from the beginning, before Bush and Blair ever launched this war, before America was prepared for the real outcome. The war hasn’t started yet. This war will never really end until America leaves. As in Vietnam, as in Libya when Mussolini occupied that country, Sudan against the British Empire, as in every country on the wrong soil that has faced a guerrilla force, no foreign conventional army has ever defeated a local guerrilla force of any significant size. This is not Belfast, not the Red Brigades. This is war Mr. Bush has gotten us into and it will not end in a decade, maybe not a generation. And no matter how it ends, history will haunt Americans again with that horrendous self-reflective question: “What were we doing there”? Then we will debate, hold another contest? where to place yet another monument to the dead; though really a monument to the failed statesmen that fought yet another wrong-headed war in our name.
(End 7/28/03)
_______________________________________
Craig B Hulet? lost nearly his entire unit in Vietnam (C Troop, 2/17th Air Cavalry, 101st Airborne 1969-70) with the colors sent home (80% losses); he was Special Assistant for Special Projects to Cong. Jack Metcalf (Ret.) and periodically consultant to ATF&E Of The U.S. Dept. Justice/Homeland Security.

 


Universal fascism, freedom betrayed:

What is Mr. Bush doing in your name?

Craig B Hulet?

A true believer doesn’t ask any questions. A true believer accepts no answers from others. A true believer believes in what he believes, believe it or not. Mr. Bush may be one of these, he has stated it this way: “I believe what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.” He has in fact hinted that his wars in the Middle East are Holy Wars. Israeli paper Harretz says that according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, Bush told him, “God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” (Source: Al Harretz, 06/26/03, Israel).

I do not know if he really believes all this, or even believes what he says he believes. Nobody really knows anyone this deeply. But what we are hearing when he makes these kinds of statements: “Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, ‘To the captives, “come out,” and to those in darkness, “be free.””; this is what he told U.S. troops on May 1st when he declared “we won.” Soldiers have unique ways of responding to combat; in Vietnam, where I both served in combat and protested the war simultaneously without ambiguity, we just said it was just FUBAR. You may translate it freely. But nevertheless we must listen to what Mr. Bush says and take him at his word. We must read what his closest advisors think about and how they formulate policies. It is, in the end, what these elite “think” that causes them to “do.”

In every age...the ultimate sources of war are the beliefs of those in power:

their idea about what is of most fundamental importance

and may therefore ultimately be worth a war.

-- Evan Luard, International War

 

Maybe one of the elite themselves put it best on the subject of Empires and their vulnerability, when Charles A. Kupchan stated “I use the term elite and decision makers synonymously to refer to those individuals responsible for formulating and implementing foreign and defense policy. To study their motivations and beliefs offers the most direct and accurate means of tracing the key considerations that shape policy.”

(The Vulnerability of Empire, 1994, Cornell, Page 5, Footnote 9)


Certain, less credible and sometimes downright ugly progressive leftists used to regularly attack anyone who spoke of these elites and outlined the “who’s who” of political misdeeds and policy and, indeed, smeared them as conspiracy theorists and anti-Semites (terms used synonymously by the left); they always charged these analysts with being “on the far-right.” According to postmodern post-Marxist thought one must confine your analysis to an institutional one whereby individuals are never culpable but act in the flow of consciousness that comes with institutions and presumably the buildings. They are no longer heard from these days because what was warned of by such analysts who always knew and understood what Messrs Luard and Kupchan knew and understood, are the only ones who have been consistently correct, prolific in their prophetic analyses for two decades, and stand alone once again in their analysis.

We are now entering the age of Empire once again, the age of not just any typical empire, not a Roman imperial project as the Romans themselves benefited by Rome. No, this American-led (militarily) but Western (Northern/Western) commercial empire, and all empires are commercial, is a corporate empire. Corporatism is its fundamental ideology, not religion, not nationalism (though nationalistic rhetoric must be used on the ignorant masses that know little of such things), but a new secular religion with mammon as its god, free markets (read managed competition between only the largest monopoly enterprises) and democracy as its shill, its cover, its myth. Freedom for the Iraqi people, while freedom slips away in America, in Great Britain, in every nation on earth?

Rudolf Giuliani, the mayor of New York, delivered his last mayoral speech in St Paul’s Chapel, close to the 9/11 site of the twin towers, saying in part, “All that matters,” he claimed, “is that you embrace America and understand its ideals and what it’s all about. Abraham Lincoln used to say that the test of your Americanism was ... how much you believed in America. Because we’re like a religion really. A secular religion.” Precisely put, though Lincoln didn’t say the last two lines, Giuliani did.

What is this secular religion? It certainly is not Christianity, Christianity is but the foil, a warm blanket for the itching ears of simpletons on both the right and left. The Left, because as true believers too, they fear a rebirth of Christian inquisitional fervor (an angst they should beware of) and the Right, because they are true believers and choose to believe the leaders who speak their language (their angst is really anomie as Emile Durkheim understood so well). Mr. Bush has both highly religious sects in the palms of his hands; with this kind of political propaganda and rhetoric one could say, “he owns them.” The Left fears what isn’t even their real enemies; the Right believes they are safe because “they believe” Mr. Bush (Hannity, O’Rielly, Savage and Limbaugh, etc.) represents their views and hopes, dreams and hates: they are, both sides, wrong and Bush knows this all-too-well. Bush may be neither a Christian nor a conservative. He is something all-together different; something the world hasn’t seen for many decades, but all-together dangerous and maybe worse than history portends. Yes, for the true believers of the Left, there are much worse things than your skewed view of a Christian conservative. And for Christians on the Right, your views are not held in esteem at this White House. There is a not-so-new breed in charge these days.

White House and White Presidents,

They think they cannot fail,

To Mesmerize and Synthesize,

Democracy for sale.

(Human, All-Too-Human: A Nietzschean Retrospective 1999)

Neo-conservatives are what they euphemistically called themselves decades ago these men that surround Mr. Bush, that he seems to like so much, certainly listens to too much to his own future demise. They are neither conservative nor is even one of them a Christian. Recently the iconoclast Congressman Ron Paul (I admit we are very old friends though I am likely no longer welcome in his presence) gave a speech on the floor of Congress, an empty room as with most Special Order speeches, and had this to say of the neo-con's beliefs after pointing out their past leftist affiliations: “More recently, the modern-day neo-cons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites.”

Many neo-cons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neo-con philosophy in some varying degree.

Mr. Bush now brags he has appointed twenty of these die-hards to his administration. Here is brief take on what most of them believe to one degree on another:


1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

They have always been a very small minority but they are intelligent and prolific in their writing and their, well, let us call it what it is, their “agitation” for power: “They agitated for their beliefs for decades through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein.” They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

As Ron Paul pointed out succinctly “multiple think-tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neo-con charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neo-con agenda.” (Source:http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm)

Michael Ledeen though may be the signal source to beware: his books included Universal Fascism, Freedom Betrayed, and The War Against the Terror Masters. Here is a taste of Ledeen from Ron Paul:

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” (Ibid.)

Ron Paul analyzes this as meaning, “In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader.” Paul then asks what we all should be asking today, “What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington?” (Ibid.)

 

“Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased....Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.”

--Michael Ledeen

Now this does not mean that the rhetoric of Christian fundamentalism is not used, indeed, Leeden sees it as necessary, not that it be true, but as a tool of control and electoral ambitions, fear and justification to the ignorant masses of the Left and the Right. Yes, the Left must believe what Mr. Bush says as much as the Right (which does in fact often agree) believe they want to believe in what Mr. Bush says. Think about it for a moment, give some reflection to the conceptual nuance when Mr. Bush stated, about his job as President: “I’m not about nuance.” Nothing could have been more pregnant with nuance than that very statement.

As Ledeen pointed out in his book, “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good....Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular.” And then add this to the stench of Ledeen’s version of Machiavellianism: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” Ron Paul was right to rebut this nonsense with the following “This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.” (Ibid.)

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): “…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.” So the neo-cons got their fortuitous event as they put it, in 9/11! And Pearl Harbor was a good thing?

Ledeen has gained notoriety in recent months for the following paragraph in his latest book, The War Against the Terror Masters. In what reads like a prophetic approval of the policy of chaos now being visited on Iraq, Ledeen wrote,

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.
In his book, Universal Fascism, published in 1972, Ledeen makes it even clearer what his basic beliefs are. That work starts with the assertion that it is a mistake to explain the support of fascism by millions of Europeans “solely because they had been hypnotized by the rhetoric of gifted orators and manipulated by skilful propagandists.”... “It seems more plausible,” Ledeen argued, “to attempt to explain their enthusiasm by treating them as believers in the rightness of the fascist cause, which had a coherent ideological appeal to a great many people.” For Ledeen, as for the lifelong fascist theoretician and practitioner, Giuseppe Bottai, that appeal lay in the fact that fascism was “the Revolution of the 20th century.” Ledeen supports de Felice’s distinction between “fascism-movement” and “fascism-regime.” Mussolini’s regime, he says, was “authoritarian and reactionary”; by contrast, within “fascism-movement,” there were many who were animated by “a desire to renew.” These people wanted “something more revolutionary: the old ruling class had to be swept away so that newer, more dynamic elements—capable of effecting fundamental changes—could come to power.” (Source: John Laughland, lecturer and a trustee of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group; June 30, 2003, The American Conservative Flirting with Fascism: Neocon theorist Michael Ledeen draws more from Italian fascism than from the American Right.)


“...fascism nevertheless constituted a political revolution in Italy.

For the first time, there was an attempt to mobilize the masses

and to involve them in the political life of the country.”

--Ledeen

Indeed, Ledeen criticizes Mussolini precisely for not being revolutionary enough. “He never had enough confidence in the Italian people to permit them a genuine participation in fascism.” As John Laughland tirelessly pointed out, “He [Ledeen] writes that people around Berto Ricci—the editor of the fascist newspaper L’Universale, and a man he calls “brilliant” and “an example of enthusiasm and independence”— “called for the formation of a new empire, an empire based not on military conquest but rather on Italy’s unique genius for civilization. … They intended to develop the traditions of their country and their civilization in such a manner as to make them the basic tenets of a new world order.” Ledeen adds, in a passage that anticipates his later love of creative destruction, “Clearly the act of destruction which would produce the flowering of the new fascist hegemony would sweep away the present generation of Italians, along with the rest.” And Giuseppe Bottai, to whom Ledeen attributes “considerable energy and autonomy,” was notable for his belief that “the infusion of the creative energies of a new generation was essential” for the fascist revolution. Bottai “implored the young … to found a new order arising from the spontaneous activity of their creation.” (Ibid.)

What are we to make of all this? Is this just the isolated mad ramblings of an overwrought mind, an intellectual masturbatory rant the likes we would expect from Michael Savage rather than an American Enterprise Institute intellectual? I fear we must take this all-too-seriously. There are many books out these days which describe (like never before) what happened in Weimar Germany in the inter-war years of 1919-1933. There is much to ponder from authors like Detlev J.K. Puekert, 1 Zeev Sternhell, 2 Sebastian Haffner, 3 and the masterwork of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, 4 who, each in their own way, their own research or memoirs, finds the German people of the inter-war years, like the American people today post 9/11, seemingly, willingly prepared to throw away liberty, the U.S. Constitution, be harangued by a president whose language increasingly fills {mine if not yours) my ears with a Towering Babel of rant, obfuscation and mediocrity; language better suited to a lower ranking non-commissioned officer. Come-on? “Bring ‘em on!”

This is the language not of a statesman but a tyrant; language of “you’re either with us or against us.” This is language not befitting a free republic based upon democratic principles and liberty; a nation founded upon dissent and discourse not defamation and vitriol. But like it or not, left or right, free or bond this is the language of the new world order. The language based upon specific ways of viewing the world; of beliefs and ideology; of irrational power and infantile perspective. This is the language of permanent wars; preemptive and gratuitous slaughter. As Ron Paul pointed out in his recent speech, “It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American.” (The hegemons, I might add, have been recently called by William Safire “The Four Horsemen” [Viacom, Disney, Fox, and GE/NBC] most appropriately I think. 5 )

And now, this is my country, your country if you are an American reading this. Empire is incompatible with a free Republic. And it is time we ask, “Mr. Bush, what are you doing in our names”?

"This country still allows open discourse—

though less everyday—and

we who disagree should push the discussion and

expose those who drive our policies."

--Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

(End 07/30/03)

______________________________________

Footnotes:

1 The Weimar Republic: the Crisis of Classical Modernity, and Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition and Racism in Everyday life.

2 Neither Left nor Right

3 Defying Hitler A Memoir

4 Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust

5 Source: Washington, Bush's Four Horsemen By William Safire 7/24/03


__________________________

Craig B Hulet was Special Assistant to Congressman Jack Metcalf (Ret.) and is author of the new book The Hydra of Carnage: Bush’s Imperial War-making and the Rule of Law: An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of Empire, 2002; The Artful Nuance Press) Mr. Hulet can be reached through www.kcandassociates.org or www.craigbhulet.com

Copyright 2003 The Artful Nuance


So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?

Psychologist Oliver James analyses the behaviour of the American president

The Guardian : Tuesday September 2, 2003

As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he had achieved nothing he could call his own. He was all too aware that none of his educational and professional accomplishments would have occured without his father. He felt so low that he did not care if he lived or died. Taking a friend out for a flight in a Cessna aeroplane, it only became apparent he had not flown one before when they nearly crashed on take-off. Narrowly avoiding stalling a few times, they crash-landed and the friend breathed a sigh of relief - only for Bush to rev up the engine and take off again.

Not long afterwards, staring at his vomit-spattered face in the mirror, this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist Christian. David Frum, his speechwriter, described the change: "Sigmund Freud imported the Latin pronoun id to describe the impulsive, carnal, unruly elements of the human personality. [In his youth] Bush's id seems to have been every bit as powerful and destructive as Clinton's id. But sometime in Bush's middle years, his id was captured, shackled and manacled, and locked away."

One of the jailers was his father. His grandfather, uncles and many cousins attended both his secondary school, Andover, and his university, Yale, but the longest shadow was cast by his father's exceptional careers there.

On the wall of his school house at Andover, there was a large black-and-white photograph of his father in full sporting regalia. He had been one of the most successful student athletes in the school's 100-year history and was similarly remembered at Yale, where his grandfather was a trustee. His younger brother, Jeb, summed the problem up when he said, "A lot of people who have fathers like this feel a sense that they have failed." Such a titanic figure created mixed feelings. On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to emulate him. Peter Neumann, an Andover roommate, recalls that, "He idolised his father, he was going to be just like his dad." At Yale, a friend remembered a "deep respect" for his father and when he later set up in the oil business, another friend said, "He was focused to prove himself to his dad."

On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a desperate attempt to carve out something of his own. Far from paternal emulation, Bush described his goal at school as "to instil a sense of frivolity". Contemporaries at Yale say he was like the John Belushi character in the film Animal House, a drink-fuelled funseeker.

He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast preppy types like his father, sometimes cruelly so. On one occasion he walked up to a matronly woman at a smart cocktail party and asked, "So, what's sex like after 50, anyway?"

A direct and loutish challenge to his father's posh sensibility came aged 25, after he had drunkenly crashed a car. "I hear you're looking for me," he sneered at his father, "do you want to go mano a mano, right here?"

As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering mother.

Barbara Bush is described by her closest intimates as prone to "withering stares" and "sharply crystalline" retorts. She is also extremely tough. When he was seven, Bush's younger sister, Robin, died of leukaemia and several independent witnesses say he was very upset by this loss. Barbara claims its effect was exaggerated but nobody could accuse her of overreacting: the day after the funeral, she and her husband were on the golf course.

She was the main authority-figure in the home. Jeb describes it as having been, "A kind of matriarchy... when we were growing up, dad wasn't at home. Mom was the one to hand out the goodies and the discipline." A childhood friend recalls that,"She was the one who instilled fear", while Bush put it like this: "Every mother has her own style. Mine was a little like an army drill sergeant's... my mother's always been a very outspoken person who vents very well - she'll just let rip if she's got something on her mind." According to his uncle, the "letting rip" often included slaps and hits. Countless studies show that boys with such mothers are at much higher risk of becoming wild, alcoholic or antisocial.

On top of that, Barbara added substantially to the pressure from his father to be a high achiever by creating a highly competitive family culture. All the children's games, be they tiddlywinks or baseball, were intensely competitive - an actual "family league table" was kept of performance in various pursuits. At least this prepared him for life at Andover, where emotional literacy was definitely not part of the curriculum. Soon after arriving, he was asked to write an essay on a soul-stirring experience in his life to date and he chose the death of his sister. His mother had drilled it into him that it was wrong when writing to repeat words already used. Having employed "tears" once in the essay, he sought a substitute from a thesaurus she had given him and wrote "the lacerates ran down my cheeks". The essay received a fail grade, accompanied by derogatory comments such as "disgraceful".

This incident may be an insight into Bush's strange tendency to find the wrong words in making public pronouncements. "Is our children learning?" he once famously asked. On responding to critics of his intellect he claimed that they had "misunderestimated" him. Perhaps these verbal faux-pas are a barely unconscious way of winding up his bullying mother and waving two fingers at his cultured father's sensibility.

The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes of fascism. As the name suggests, authoritarians impose the strictest possible discipline on themselves and others - the sort of regime found in today's White House, where prayers precede daily business, appointments are scheduled in five-minute blocks, women's skirts must be below the knee and Bush rises at 5.45am, invariably fitting in a 21-minute, three-mile jog before lunch.

Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents' prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues.

His moralism is all-encompassing and as passionate as can be. He plans to replace state welfare provision with faith-based charitable organisations that would impose Christian family values.

The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil. But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are those who have adopted the values of the 60s. He says he loathes "people who felt guilty about their lot in life because others were suffering".

He has always rejected any kind of introspection. Everyone who knows him well says how hard he is to get to know, that he lives behind what one friend calls a "facile, personable" facade. Frum comments that, "He is relentlessly disciplined and very slow to trust. Even when his mouth seems to be smiling at you, you can feel his eyes watching you."

His deepest beliefs amount to superstition. "Life takes its own turns," he says, "writes its own story and along the way we start to realise that we are not the author." God's will, not his own, explains his life.

Most fundamentalist Christians have authoritarian personalities. Two core beliefs separate fundamentalists from mere evangelists ("happy-clappy" Christians) or the mainstream Presbyterians among whom Bush first learned religion every Sunday with his parents: fundamentalists take the Bible absolutely literally as the word of God and believe that human history will come to an end in the near future, preceded by a terrible, apocaplytic battle on Earth between the forces of good and evil, which only the righteous shall survive. According to Frum when Bush talks of an "axis of evil" he is identifying his enemies as literally satanic, possessed by the devil. Whether he specifically sees the battle with Iraq and other "evil" nations as being part of the end-time, the apocalypse preceding the day of judgment, is not known. Nor is it known whether Tony Blair shares these particular religious ideas.

However, it is certain that however much Bush may sometimes seem like a buffoon, he is also powered by massive, suppressed anger towards anyone who challenges the extreme, fanatical beliefs shared by him and a significant slice of his citizens - in surveys, half of them also agree with the statement "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word".

Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid the world of evil.

As Frum put it: "Id-control is the basis of Bush's presidency but Bush is a man of fierce anger." That anger now rules the world.

 


History is but the precedent for the future.


Craig B Hulet?

What was interesting was that there were no flags out in the area of the Pacific Northwest where I live until Mr. Bush began heralding victory, that we had won, that it was all over. Then suddenly like spring daffodils Flags began to sprout. The common man finds common cause with those seen as going to win. They don’t want the fight. They don’t want the risk. They just want to be seen to be on the winning side, whichever one doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter that only ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco, Haliburton, Brown & Root, are the only real winners. The masses here at home have to foot the bill, pay in blood and coin. The truly stupid will follow the path of empire, soon enough giving up their sons and now daughters (in the new imperial age, girls are equal) to a new draft. There will be more wars, not for humanitarian aid, democracy or liberation, not over WMD but for control of regions necessary to empire’s birth. We will be lied to again and again. Mr. Bush will be hailed Caesar the protector not Caesar of Oil.

Wars fought in the dark, between governments both hoping for victory, are gambles; and they enlist the same passions as gambling for money. There is only avarice, or more probably debt and destitution, but even more prominently there is love of excitement, faith in one’s luck, and eagerness to try a system said to work miracles. Such war is barbarous, not only for being cruel and wrathful, but for being hysterical. The herd instinct at work produces frenzy in individuals otherwise sane. There is a rush of a thousand hearts in a vague cause, simply because it has become the common cause.
--George Santayana Reflections on Liberty, Society and Government

The worst herd of all is that of the media. Without the media’s complicit buffoonery and gullibility, race for ratings and their ability to live with a level of hypocrisy hitherto unheard of, none of this could succeed. Await the day Mr. Bush declares Congress must grant him another term, a third term, as President because of the crises here at home and the wars and unrest abroad. Bury your gold coins now. Sell your guns now to receive their fair market value. Wait for the call to arms when each of us must sacrifice and work for the Homeland and Security. History is nothing more than the precedent set for the future. We have seen this all before.

Date: April 25, 2003


Copyright 2000-2014 K C & Associates Send site questions or comments to Katie711a@kcandassociates.org