Bernard Weiner: The Roots of Disaster ... Impeachment As Remedy
[Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly two decades, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net.]
What was the route that led the U.S. to its present fiasco in Iraq and elsewhere? We'll get to impeachment below, but for now let's trace back the thread, starting in 1947. This narrative may seem like old history, but it adds to better understanding of how we got from there then to here now. (Much of the shorthand analysis below is derived from my doctoral dissertation on the "Truman Doctrine.")
America, having helped defeat the then-reining "Axis of Evil" -- the fascist triumvirate of Germany, Japan, Italy -- was eager to return to post-war normalcy. U.S. troops returned home from Europe and the Pacific; industry converted from manufacturing war materiel to homes, cars, refrigerators; the U.S. economy was starting to hum. Though some Republican rightwingers were suggesting the U.S. should "finish the job" by "rolling back" Stalin's control of Eastern Europe, there wasn't much stomach for starting another world war so soon after the last one ended.
The British had covertly let the president know that postwar strains on the Empire were taking their toll on that country's economic and political systems. And then, suddenly, the Brits openly informed their American allies that their situation was so tenuous that the U.S. would have to take over the job of propping up the pro-West governments in Turkey and Greece. (Greece had a large, active, armed Communist Party in struggle against the rightwing government.)
BIRTH OF "THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE"
President Harry Truman recognized that, given the problems facing the weakened British Empire, the U.S. would indeed have to step in, at least economically, to stabilize the post-war situation. But since Truman hadn't informed the Congress about any of this, suddenly asking them to pony up $400 million for the embattled Greek and Turkish governments was going to be a tough sell.
Truman, a Democrat facing a Republican Congress, asked the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, GOP Senator Arthur Vandenberg, for his support. If you want to get that money out of Congress, Vandenberg said, you'll have to "scare hell out of the country." In other words, take a minor budget item and blow it out of all proportion -- couched in a struggle against a Soviet-led, worldwide "Red Menace."
And thus "The Truman Doctrine," initiated by the president and backed by the rabidly anti-Soviet Republicans, was born. That doctrine basically said that from now on, the U.S. would take action anywhere in the world to combat Communism. Greece/Turkey was the region where the fight would start.
Congress did grant Truman the funds for Greece and Turkey, and in so doing the U.S. took a giant step away from its predominantly isolationist stance in world politics. But by agreeing to engage "the enemy" anywhere Communism reared its head, the U.S. locked itself into an unworkable, unrealistic, ultimately self-defeating policy.
It was precisely that ideology and worldview that influenced U.S. actions years later when America took over the colonial war in Vietnam that had defeated the French. As the years went by, the U.S. found itself trapped in an Asian quagmire it never fully comprehended, and resisted the popular clamor to cut their losses and bring the boys home.
ISLAMISTS AS THE NEW "COMMUNISTS"
I think you can see where I'm going with this ancient history: "scaring hell out of the country" is not a concept unknown in our current situation.
The new "communists," so to speak -- Islamic extremists -- bloodied the nose of their American enemy on September 11, 2001 by slaughtering nearly 3000 in New York and Washington. Bush vowed to retaliate. Bush and his neo-con advisers, who already had Iraq in their crosshairs long before 9/11, could have chosen to mount a global campaign to locate, isolate and capture/kill those responsible for the attacks; in other words, it could have treated the conspiracy as an international criminal matter. But that would yield Bush and his supporters very little, politically speaking, especially since the rightwing GOP agenda in Congress was going nowhere.
In short, Bush&Co. decided they needed to "scare hell out of the country" -- using supposed WMDs controlled by Saddam, allusions to Iraq-delivered nuclear bombs going off in the U.S., etc. -- in order to gain public approval for the extreme actions the Administration was about to take. A permanent "war against terrorism" would help maintain that level of fright.
Americans probably wouldn't go along with the radical re-direction required, said a Project for The New American Century report (major players: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney), until or unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred. Condi Rice, days after 9/11, said the U.S. should seize the "opportunity" offered by 9/11 for the implementation of its agenda. Whether by conscious action or just plain coincidence, the next "Pearl Harbor" definitely had arrived. ...
Since it doesn't appear that any significant changes in U.S. Iraq policy will be implemented while CheneyBush rule, and since that policy is endangering America abroad and shredding the Constitution at home, only one legal remedy is available to the Congress and citizenry: impeachment....
Read entire article at Crisis Papers
What was the route that led the U.S. to its present fiasco in Iraq and elsewhere? We'll get to impeachment below, but for now let's trace back the thread, starting in 1947. This narrative may seem like old history, but it adds to better understanding of how we got from there then to here now. (Much of the shorthand analysis below is derived from my doctoral dissertation on the "Truman Doctrine.")
America, having helped defeat the then-reining "Axis of Evil" -- the fascist triumvirate of Germany, Japan, Italy -- was eager to return to post-war normalcy. U.S. troops returned home from Europe and the Pacific; industry converted from manufacturing war materiel to homes, cars, refrigerators; the U.S. economy was starting to hum. Though some Republican rightwingers were suggesting the U.S. should "finish the job" by "rolling back" Stalin's control of Eastern Europe, there wasn't much stomach for starting another world war so soon after the last one ended.
The British had covertly let the president know that postwar strains on the Empire were taking their toll on that country's economic and political systems. And then, suddenly, the Brits openly informed their American allies that their situation was so tenuous that the U.S. would have to take over the job of propping up the pro-West governments in Turkey and Greece. (Greece had a large, active, armed Communist Party in struggle against the rightwing government.)
BIRTH OF "THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE"
President Harry Truman recognized that, given the problems facing the weakened British Empire, the U.S. would indeed have to step in, at least economically, to stabilize the post-war situation. But since Truman hadn't informed the Congress about any of this, suddenly asking them to pony up $400 million for the embattled Greek and Turkish governments was going to be a tough sell.
Truman, a Democrat facing a Republican Congress, asked the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, GOP Senator Arthur Vandenberg, for his support. If you want to get that money out of Congress, Vandenberg said, you'll have to "scare hell out of the country." In other words, take a minor budget item and blow it out of all proportion -- couched in a struggle against a Soviet-led, worldwide "Red Menace."
And thus "The Truman Doctrine," initiated by the president and backed by the rabidly anti-Soviet Republicans, was born. That doctrine basically said that from now on, the U.S. would take action anywhere in the world to combat Communism. Greece/Turkey was the region where the fight would start.
Congress did grant Truman the funds for Greece and Turkey, and in so doing the U.S. took a giant step away from its predominantly isolationist stance in world politics. But by agreeing to engage "the enemy" anywhere Communism reared its head, the U.S. locked itself into an unworkable, unrealistic, ultimately self-defeating policy.
It was precisely that ideology and worldview that influenced U.S. actions years later when America took over the colonial war in Vietnam that had defeated the French. As the years went by, the U.S. found itself trapped in an Asian quagmire it never fully comprehended, and resisted the popular clamor to cut their losses and bring the boys home.
ISLAMISTS AS THE NEW "COMMUNISTS"
I think you can see where I'm going with this ancient history: "scaring hell out of the country" is not a concept unknown in our current situation.
The new "communists," so to speak -- Islamic extremists -- bloodied the nose of their American enemy on September 11, 2001 by slaughtering nearly 3000 in New York and Washington. Bush vowed to retaliate. Bush and his neo-con advisers, who already had Iraq in their crosshairs long before 9/11, could have chosen to mount a global campaign to locate, isolate and capture/kill those responsible for the attacks; in other words, it could have treated the conspiracy as an international criminal matter. But that would yield Bush and his supporters very little, politically speaking, especially since the rightwing GOP agenda in Congress was going nowhere.
In short, Bush&Co. decided they needed to "scare hell out of the country" -- using supposed WMDs controlled by Saddam, allusions to Iraq-delivered nuclear bombs going off in the U.S., etc. -- in order to gain public approval for the extreme actions the Administration was about to take. A permanent "war against terrorism" would help maintain that level of fright.
Americans probably wouldn't go along with the radical re-direction required, said a Project for The New American Century report (major players: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney), until or unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred. Condi Rice, days after 9/11, said the U.S. should seize the "opportunity" offered by 9/11 for the implementation of its agenda. Whether by conscious action or just plain coincidence, the next "Pearl Harbor" definitely had arrived. ...
Since it doesn't appear that any significant changes in U.S. Iraq policy will be implemented while CheneyBush rule, and since that policy is endangering America abroad and shredding the Constitution at home, only one legal remedy is available to the Congress and citizenry: impeachment....