Remora

Intelligence and its discontents

LI comes from a long line of cop Pyrrhonists. In our family, the announcement on tv or in the newspapers that the police have come to the conclusion that X is guilty is usually provoked the comment that X was probably being railroaded. This attitude was re-enforced by my brothers' experience of the policeman's art. Both of my brothers worked, at one time, in the apartment game, as maintenance supervisors. Now apartment complexes sometimes acquire security on the cheap by letting a cop have an apartment free. In return, the moonlighting gendarme was supposed to keep an eye on things. In this way, my brothers got an anthropologists eyeful of cops. For instance, they learned the phrase, "patroling the residence." This meant going home and watching tv of a lazy week day afternoon. Another thing they learned was detection. Robberies and the occasional suicide liven up apartment life. In the case of robberies, the policeman's first suspicion usually fall on the robbed. Insurance, surely. This saves shoe leather. Also, since nobody in an urban area is going to get their stuff back, the cops feel they haven't done their duty if they don't finger some suspect. And hey, they are serving the powers that be -- i.e. insurance companies. Cops have instinctive status quo-o-philia.

One of the reasons LI is big on gun rights is that we think it is simply naive to allow an armed police force to confront a disarmed populace. Gun control advocates, who never tackle this issue, are exuding that typical American exceptionalism thing -- it can't happen here because we have such nice white suburbs.

However, that's the milder form of our skepticism. Even my bros accept the need for the local cops. But we'd like to politely suggest that the world would be a better place if the FBI, the DEA, the AFT, and the CIA were disbanded. These are minions of the worst kind of state power. Their injuries to the nation they supposedly serve have been massive, their countering benefits few. Collectively, they have roots in the kind of militaristic, bureaucratic empire-building that has always done the worst things in America and around the world.

Which is why we were interested in this column by Paul Foot about the Lockerbie explosion. We lazily assumed that the Lockerbie case was, at least, all sewn up. The Libyans did it, and Qaddafi, after being squeezed, has basically shrunk into a petty, absurd despot. Paul Foot disagrees. His column leaps from the recent embarrassment about Mr. Bond -- a retired businessman in South Africa who was slung into jail after the FBI mis-identified him as an absconding felon -- and attaches to the mysteries of Lockerbie:


"The reliability of the FBI was tested in a case I knew something about: the biggest mass murder in British history - the bombing of a plane over Lockerbie in 1988. For a long time the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic believed the Lockerbie bombing was in retaliation for the reckless destruction by a US warship of an Iranian plane six months earlier. Suspicion fell on a group of terrorists based in Syria.

But then Syria joined the US and their allies in the first war against Saddam Hussein and suddenly vanished from the Lockerbie frame. In its place as chief suspect was Libya. The forensic link to Libya was allegedly established by a tiny piece of circuit board from a timer, mysteriously found in remote countryside after the bombing, and traced by the FBI to a Swiss manufacturer who sold timers to Libya.

The genius behind this detective work was FBI agent Tom Thurman. For reasons that were never clear Mr Thurman was not called to give evidence to the hugely expensive trial of two Libyans three years ago. The US authorities and their media, however, were full of praise for Thurman and his work. In November 1991, for instance, he was named "Person of the Week" on the TV Network ABC. The rivers of praise dried up rather suddenly when The Person of the Week's work at the FBI Explosives Unit was investigated by the Department of Justice. Their inquiry found that Thurman "had been routinely altering the reports of scientists working in the unit". Fifty-two such reports were investigated. Only 20 had not been altered."

As Foot then points out, America, which is the brave New World of second chances, has accorded one to Mr. Thurman, who is teaching his unique method of detective work as a professor of criminology at some fine American university.

American Radio Works has done a good job in exposing the flaws in the Libyan investigation.-- not that anyone is paying attention.

What, we wonder, would Mr. Pilbeam make of it all?

Mr. Pilbeam P. Frobisher Pilbeam was the appalling detective who refused the case of the purloined pig in Wodehouse's Summer Lightning. You will remember that Ronnie Fish stole Lord Emsworth's prize pig in order to restore it, at the critical moment, in order to receive the benefit of Lord Emsworth's undying gratitude, plus a little of the ready, which would make it possible for him to marry Sue Brown, whom he suspected was dancing behind his back with his best friend Hugo. But even Pilbeam, odious as he was (it turned out that he was madly in love with Sue himself) knew better than to frame Libyans for the caper.

So -- here's the plan. Let's find some modern day Pilbeam, and turn the detecting -- all of it, the whole lot, everything the FBI does -- over to his capable hands. First thing he'll do is disgard the profiling crap --from racial profiling to the pseudo-science of psychologically profiling serial killers. Second thing he'll do is buckle down on the anthrax case -- after all, we know that the killer was mailing things off from a little post office in New Jersey in the hyper-aware autumn of 2001 -- Pilbeam would be on the spot, asking questions and looking at maps. And thirdly, he'd get rid of the colors for the security alerts -- surely the government can make money, a la David Foster Wallace, by selling the alerts to various corporations? We are going to need that money for the tax cuts and our Middle Eastern arabesque. Surely.

Dope

The enemy that I see
wears a cloak of decency
-- Bob Dylan

Is Bob Dylan the Very Jones of our time or what? LI has just finished to the funeste tones of our President. The poor man is being forced, dragged, pulled into a war that he wishes and prays he could avoid.

Yeah, right. That and a nickel won't get you a pack of bubble gum.

Press conferences have become embarrassing exercises in kissing the imperial behind anyway. After Nixon, the wolfish aspect of the press corps was pretty much brought to heel. We can take only so much lese majeste, as they say in the newsrooms.

Bush rambled on about intelligence reports that trumped anything mere arms inspectors from the U.N. could hope to accomplish. His enunciation, which seemed set, by some advisor, on the very slow and the very repetitive, reminded me of nothing so much as a Sunday School teacher denying a dangerous liason with some likely student. It radiated the ersatz dignity of the provincial. No questions, of course, were asked about the intelligence reports that were quoted by Colin Powell in his speech in the U.N., some of which turned out to be plagiarized by Tony Blair's PR team from a Ph.D student's dissertation. Nobody asked, even, if the scope of our omniscience, which can apparently pluck the thoughts from the missile shifting part of Saddam Hussein's cerebellum before they reach his tongue, shouldn't be trained on, oh, finding out who ground up anthrax spores and sent them through the mail for a week back in November 2001. And nobody asked whether the U.S. shouldn't share its intelligence with the arms inspectors. Questions about anthrax, by the way, have simply fallen through the cracks. Even the evening's obvious question -- if Iraq disarmed, but Saddam Hussein remained at the head of the nation, would Bush be satisfied? -- was not put.

When LI dislikes a person as much as we have grown to dislike Bush, we have learned to distrust our first hearing. We need second hearing -- listening outside of our own densities and voids, dreads and bents. And for second hearing we've increasingly turned to the past -- to dead writers from the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and to the writers of the middle part of the twentieth. Alas, living writers have let us down. Second hearing is what they want to rob you of -- that conglomerate of D.C. media folk. Their reaction will be predictable -- sober when the president's words cry out for parody, frivolous when the president's questioners cry out to be more pressing.

At the moment, I get my second hearing from Burke. Odd, that.

Oh, and Very Jones -- if you don't know the American poet Very Jones, here's a link . And here's his poem The Canary Bird, which I've been memorizing:


I cannot hear thy voice with other�s ears,
Who make of thy lost liberty a gain;
And in thy tale of blighted hopes and fears
Feel not that every note is born with pain.
Alas! That with thy music�s gentle swell
Past days of joy should through thy memory throng,
And each to thee their words of sorrow tell
While ravished sense forgets thee in thy song.
The heart that on thy past and future feeds,
And pours in human words its thoughts divine,
Though at each birth the spirit inly bleeds,
Its song may charm the listening ear like thine,
And men with gilded cage and praise will try
To make the bard like thee forget his native sky.

Remora

Fifty years ago, Stalin died.

LI woke up to an NPR piece about a museum exhibit dedicated to Stalin's reign in Moscow. The exhibit has attracted elderly, nostalgic Russians who say things like he beat my grandma systematically with iron rods for ten years -- he was a truly great man! He shot my dog, ate my baby, and made Russia strong! Then a reasonable elderly man was interviewed who said that he was neither for nor against Stalin. Sure, he killed 10 million people -- but just think of the alternative! Finally the announcer gives the results of a poll also referred to by this NYT story about Stalin being poisoned:


"Yet modern Russians are torn about his memory. The latest poll of 1,600 adults by the All-Russian Public Opinion Center, released today on the eve of the 50th anniversary of his death, shows that more than half of all respondents believe Stalin's role in Russian history was positive, while only a third disagreed."

This matches an American poll quoted by Nicolas Kristof the other day, which shows that twice as many Americans believe in the devil's existence (65%) than believe in evolution (30%). Kristof uses this poll result to berate American journalists for not being more sensitive to God -- in fact, a few, unpardonably, have made fun of religion. No doubt if Kristoff were a Russian, he would quote the Stalin poll to berate journalists for not being more sensitive to Stalin -- he beat my grandma for twelve years, sodomized my cat, and was a great Russian leader!

The dispute over the number of Stalin's victims still goes on. The NPR report skated over the problem with the comment that Stalin killed "millions and millions" of people. Robert Conquest is the most famous advocate of a very high number -- for instance, that there were eight million people in the labor camps in the thirties, as opposed to four million, the number arrived at by Stephen Wheatcroft, one of the key advocates of lower numbers. This is a quarrel that is regularly interrupted by great gushes of dragon fire from the side of Conquest's friends -- they regularly accuse the other side of being crypto-Stalinists. Wheatcroft published an interesting article about the whole business in Europe-Asia studies a few years ago. The tone of the article is laced with pre-emptive attempts to douse the dragon's breath. Here's the way Wheatcroft edges into his much lower estimate of Stalin's victims:

"From his [Conquest's] recent comments it is difficult to unpick what he now thinks is my `conceptual error'. He is clearly annoyed that I continue to challenge his figures, and in desperation has moved on to attack me for things that I have not said. Conquest's statement that I `claim to present the true, "archival" totals for the victims of Stalinism' is ridiculous, as will be shown below. From his comment and the whole thrust of his recent writings, it appears that Conquest is still claiming that although his Kolyma figures are wrong, the rest of his earlier estimates as restated in The Great Terror: A Reassessment (1990) are correct. If this were all, it would not matter so much, and we could leave Conquest to his dreams, but unfortunately other influential scholars appear to be accepting Conquest's claims that the new data confirm his `high figures'.(n4) And so I feel obliged to put the record straight (again).

My response to Conquest is long, because most readers of this academic journal will find it difficult to make sense of his brief comment. They will come away from it with the sense that `the biggest name in the profession' thinks that the work of Wheatcroft and others who attempt to analyse the archival data is `fundamentally flawed' and suffers from `conceptual errors'. It will not matter to them that the technical arguments seem so complex that they cannot follow them. The harm will have been done--Conquest will have shown that he can still answer his critics, and that his earlier assessments or `reassessments' are correct. I hope that the more thoughtful of the readers will go beyond this and will attempt to understand the arguments about the value of these new sources."

The numbers argument most recently surfaced when Stephane Courtois edited The Black Book of Communism, which was published in France, and then translated, to a lot of smoke and dragon breath. J. Arch Getty, who is considered "soft" on Stalinism by the hardcore supporters of Conquest, reviewed the book in the Atlantic. Getty gently counters the idea that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were morally equivalent -- a position recently taken by Martin Amis. He also takes Courtois down a notch:

"Courtois writes that he is not trying to present a "macabre comparative system for crunching numbers, some kind of grand total that doubles the horror." Yet there is a lot of arithmetic in his presentation, and one gets the impression that he is including every possible death just to run up the score. That impression troubled his distinguished co-authors; Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin sparked a scandal in Paris when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois's opinions about the scale of Communist terror, asserting that his introduction was more a diatribe than a balanced scholarly treatment. They felt that he was obsessed with attributing a body count of 100 million to communism, and like several other scholars, they rejected his equation of Soviet repression with Nazi genocide. Werth, a well-regarded French specialist on the Soviet Union whose sections in the Black Book on the Soviet Communists are sober and damning, told Le Monde, "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union."

It is the next paragraph that displays Getty's unforgiveable slackness, according to Conquest's standards:

"Stalin's camps were different from Hitler's. Tens of thousands of prisoners were released every year upon completion of their sentences. We now know that before World War II more inmates escaped annually from the Soviet camps than died there. Research shows that Stalin's camps and deportations, unlike their Nazi extermination counterparts, were planned components of the Soviet economy, designed to provide a stable slave-labor supply and to populate forbidding territories forcibly with involuntary settlers. Rations and medical care were substandard, but were often not dramatically better elsewhere in Stalin's Soviet Union and were not designed to hasten the inmates' deaths, although they certainly did so. Similarly, the overwhelming weight of opinion among scholars working in the new archives (including Courtois's co-editor Werth) is that the terrible famine of the 1930s was the result of Stalinist bungling and rigidity rather than some genocidal plan."

Well, LI is a little more sympathetic to the notion of a terror famine. We believe that the famines that befell India from the 1870s to about 1910, and certainly the Bengal famine of the 40s, were terror famines -- famines that were exaccerbated to achieve pre-determined economic and/or political ends. The famine of the 30s, in Stalin's Russia, and that of the late 50s, in Mao's China, are also terror famines by that rather broad definition. We think that the common denominator, here, is a certain kind of central planning. We'd make that argument more exact if we hadn't already wearied our poor readers with it over and over in past posts. ... Probably we'll succumb to the temptation to weary you again, but not now.

Remora

Democracy, American amnesia

The great moral claim of the belligerent propagandists has been that the War will be fought to bring democracy to Iraq. It is, in fact, their only moral claim - otherwise, the war looks like an attack by an imperial power on a much smaller, and greatly weakened power that invaded a country on which it had a longstanding claim twelve years ago; was duly repulsed; and has since confined its attacks to the kind of factional squabbles that had consumed its separated, northern provinces for eight years. Furthermore, in the eighties, the imperial power in question actively encouraged the weaker power to invade a country on which it had no claim, Iran, and fight it with such weapons as were supplied by a network generously overseen by that imperial power.

So a moral claim, here, is evidently needed in order to counter the history of moral bankruptcy and sheer venality displayed by the imperial power.

Nick Cohen, who is the most coherent of the belligerent apologists, ticks off, and promptly disposes of, the reasons for opposing the war in his column in the Observer this week Cohen, of course, is advocating a war that he made up in his head - he never stoops to defend the war as actually planned by Blair and Bush. This makes defending the War so much more easy. But even for him, the cordon sanitaire between reality and delusion must have been a little shaken by the past week's bullying of Turkey. It gives us a nice preview of what the U.S. means by democracy in the Middle East.

Peter Beinart, in The New Republic, reviews some of the ancient history. Gulf I placed Turkey in the unenviable position of having to provide for a wave of refugees such as are regularly turned back - when they come from such subaltern hellholes as Haiti - by the United States. Turkey doesn't have the moral latitude that comes with 24,000 ballistic missiles, so they had to find someplace for them. In the heat of the moment in 1990, when the U.S. was going about like a horny schoolboy, promising anything in order to get to third base, Turkey was assured economic aid out the wazoo for the period after the war. Third base was achieved; in the detumescent afterwards, the promises we made to Turkey were conveniently forgotten.

But now, once again, the U.S. has a hard on. This time the Turkish government decided to play hard to get, and tried to bargain for some billions to compensate for the inevitable loss of further billions when Iraq is invaded. However, the Turkish government has to deal with the inconvenient fact that 90% of the population is opposed to the war. Well, the government made its deal, under intense U.S. pressure, but the Turkish parliament doesn't go along. Well, what happens next? Democracy be damned, if this is how Turkey is going to act, the U.S. will withdraw that aid - which is mostly in the form of loans, anyway, further indebting the place whose economy was basically a collateral casualty of the last war - while our warships ride outside the Turkish coast, apparently waiting for the Turkish military to squeeze the duly elected government. Even if the Turks cave and the U.S. gets to use Turkey as a vector into Iraq, don't bet on the U.S. keeping its word about that aid.

So, lets play with a scenario, shall we? The U.S. installs some exile Iraqi government into the niche once heated up by Saddam Hussein's bottom. The oil is still pumping, in this scenario. Here's the question: on the one hand, reconstruction costs in Iraq will probably engulf all the money created through the oil trade for the next five years - at least according to a Business Week article we've previously cited, and certainly according to those, like Nick Cohen, who justify the war in terms of Saddam Hussein's crimes and misrule. On the other hand, American taxpayers are now seeing that the war has cost around 80 billion dollars, and that occupying Iraq is going to cost another eighty billion dollars. Question: who gets that money?

Nick Cohen asks us to believe that the U.S., with one hundred thousand troops in the place, will not squeeze the Iraqi regime those troops put into office in order to take the political heat off of Bush.

LI thinks Cohen is fantasizing. The choice will come down to withdrawing the troops, or taking the money. Taking the money will, essentially, mean stealing from the starving. Would Bush do this to shore up his presidential chances? In a heartbeat. And that can only be accomplished by brute force. It is just the kind of spark that will start a guerilla war of the kind we see in Israel. Just as in Turkey, the US interest will trump democracy. But unlike in Turkey, or rather - like the Turkey that is periodically taken over by the military -- the factional struggle will have just begun. To pretend that one can squeeze past this scenario by sneering at the protesters as mere defenders of their insular prosperity is simply dishonest. The people on the streets of London February 15th, from whose pocketbooks Cohen basically expects to pay for an occupation that has every chance of devolving into another American supported despotism, are either to be considered by Cohen as a fact in his case for the war - in which case he will have to explain how the money is going to be extracted from them, or how the war's goals are going to be accomplished if the money isn't extracted from them. It is that simple.

No wonder the Ultra secret, in this war, is how much the Pentagon projects it will cost.

Remora
The Exile's Temptation

C'est une chose infiniment plus dangereuse de r�volutionner pour la vertu que de r�volutionner pour le crime. Lorsque des sc�l�rats violent les formes contre les hommes honn�tes, on sait que c'est un d�lit de plus. On s'attache aux formes, par leur violation m�me ; on apprend en silence, et par le malheur, � les regarder comme des choses sacr�es, protectrices et conservatrices de l'ordre social. Mais lorsque des hommes honn�tes violent les formes contre des sc�l�rats, le peuple ne sait plus o� il en est ; les formes et les lois se pr�sentent � lui comme des obstacles � la justice" -- Benjamin Constant, quoted in Lucien Jaume, Droit, Etat et obligation selon Benjamin Constant


What would I see the War like if I were an Iraqi exile?

LI has been reading Benjamin Constant's essay on the "Spirit of Conquest" thinking of that question this weekend. Constant wrote the essay in 1813, in Germany. He'd been in exile from Napoleon's France for five years, following in the wake of his lover, Mme. de Stael. He'd had to flee Napoleon's troops in Germany more than once. From this viewpoint, he could see just what was wrong with revolutionary expansionist wars. Which, oddly enough, is how our War is being advertised.

With less mandarin reference, the NYT Magazine article about, mostly, Kanan Makiya, the intellectual architect of the Defense department favored blueprint for Post-Saddam Iraq, thrusts the question under our noses. George Packer, who wrote the article, has been on the edge about these issues. If, like me, you feel the War will be a disaster, you still have to stop and consider the position of the politically active Iraqi exile. LI's politics, before it fits into an ideology, requires "fantasia" -- a term O'brien uses to describe Burke's politics. It means the ability to imaginative project oneself. For Burke, and I think, although O'Brien would disagree, for Marx, fantasia is the horizon that conditions politics -- not justice.

So, what would I think?

Here, after all, is a bloody tyrant. Here are millions of people demonstrating against the War, against, secondarily, Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and leaving absolutely unmentioned the Kurds, the Shiites, the massacres of the last twenty years. And the thing is -- he isn't just bloody -- he's incompetent on a scale unparalleled by even the region's notably incompetent rulers. He has, in his quest for military supremecy in the region, spent untold amounts of the country's wealth on futile projects that are now coming down on his head.

And then here's the strongest country in the world, offering its full military might. What would you do?

Packer's article begs that question, but it should definitely be read in conjunction with this article in Business Week that surveyed the Iraqi shambles, since no questions were asked about how Makiya's 'democratic government" was going to, well, support itself. Here are some central grafs from the BW article:

"Two decades of war plus 12 years of U.N. sanctions have slashed gross domestic product per capita by over 70%. The U.N. Development Programme calculates that on a purchasing-power-parity basis, Iraq's per-capita income is only $700, making it one of the poorest nations on earth outside Africa.

Saddam's economic policies have made matters worse. Since 1991, the regime has been churning out local currency, which it uses to soak up whatever dollars are available in the local market. This practice has created hyperinflation and destroyed the value of the dinar. On the black market, the currency has plunged from about 8 per dollar in 1990 to 2,000 per dollar now. Members of the once thriving middle class can feed themselves only by selling their jewelry and household goods and by receiving transfers, typically $100 per month, from relatives abroad. Crime is soaring, and girls and women from respectable families are increasingly turning to prostitution--a deeply humiliating trend in a conservative Arab society.

Even Iraq's oil reserves are unlikely to be a panacea. The fields are in a decrepit condition, with equipment broken and missing. Oil production--currently about 2.5 million barrels per day--may have to be cut in the short term while contractors replace antiquated hardware and stabilize pressure in the reservoirs. That could cost $3 billion to $4 billion--assuming Saddam doesn't sabotage the fields.

Unless oil prices stay at current high levels, Iraq's oil income of around $15 to $20 billion per year isn't likely to be enough to pay for food and other needed imports as well as rebuilding and development costs. That tab is estimated at $20 billion a year over several years."

As we've pointed out, with ever greater tediousness, the war as envisioned by the War Intellectuals -- Hitchen's war -- and the war as planned by the U.S. and British governments are two different things. Packer's article gives a sort of synthesis of the Makiya scheme for a democratic Iraq and the Wolfowitz scheme for an expansionist Israel -- an Israel that gets to keep the occupied territories, or "so called occupied territories," as Donald Rumsfeld calls them:

"The story being told goes like this:
The Arab world is hopelessly sunk in corruption and popular discontent. Misrule and a culture of victimhood have left Arabs economically stagnant and prone to seeing their problems in delusional terms. The United States has contributed to the pathology by cynically shoring up dictatorships; Sept. 11 was one result. Both the Arab world and official American attitudes toward it need to be jolted out of their rut. An invasion of Iraq would provide the necessary shock, and a democratic Iraq would become an example of change for the rest of the region. Political Islam would lose its hold on the imagination of young Arabs as they watched a more successful model rise up in their midst. The Middle East's center of political, economic and cultural gravity would shift from the region's theocracies and autocracies to its new, oil-rich democracy. And finally, the deadlock in which Israel and Palestine are trapped would end as Palestinians, realizing that their Arab backers were now tending their own democratic gardens, would accept compromise. By this way of thinking, the road to Damascus, Tehran, Riyadh and Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. "

Parts of this scheme seem reasonable to LI. The part about Palestine is simply nonsense. But the central idea, that a democratic Iraq would act as an attractor to other countries, is in a sense our idea too. We believe in the power of creating a democratic, or more democratic attractor. We simply disagree on the facts on the ground and the means to achieve this goal. This is happening in Northern Iraq. We think that for Iraq to become a democracy this attractor has to be allowed to work -- that is, the exile's temptation to strike, in one blow, against the dictator using, as a sort of forgettable instrument, a foreign power's might, should be avoided. The reason is simple -- the means resonate in the result. Constant's words make terrible sense: "when honest men violate the forms against the criminals, the people no longer know where they are: the forms and the laws are presented to them as obstacles to justice." Constant said this in 1798, before Napoleon destroyed the remnant of the Revolutionary Republic. The destruction of the future Iraqi Republic is written in its very genes if it is parented by Pentagon hawks on a coalition of Iraqi exiles. After distorting international law, bribing or threatening allies, and endorsing the fuhrer prinzip in regard to popular discontent with the War (see the utterances of Bush's poodle, or the American press about the latest vote in Turkey), to think that the hawks' ends are democratic is a delusion -- they have simply re-defined democracy. It now means "friendly to the administration of George Bush.". The new governors of Babylon will be American puppets, and they won't last long without Americans. The mentality of the coup can dress itself up as a splendid dream, but enacting an armed dream upon the waking life of a distant population is my definition of a nightmare.

Remora

Wo Es war, soll Ich werden -- Freud,


Charles Krauthammer attends, so we are told, at all the high tables in D.C., and is one of the muskateers of The Project for the New American Century, which plays a role in today's politics similar to the role played by Committee on the Present Danger http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-42.htm played in the good old days of Ronald Reagan.

Krauthammer presently plays the Id to the Bush court. While Paul Wolfowitz has been forced to straight-jacket his thoughts into the super-ego of officialdom, Krauthammer is free to express the desires that really roil the inner circle. This is important. Where the Id is, with the Bushes, the super-ego will surely follow, and trail in its wake the whole set of opinion makers, rationalizing madly. It's Freudian law applied to the Hof. Just look at tax policy. In 2000, only the wildest ideologues of plutocracy would have come out solidly against the Income Tax and in favor of sales taxes to finance the state. Slowly, though, it has dawned on even the NY Times business page that this is precisely Bush's strategy, as was remarked in this article on Bush's bizarre pension tax plan:


"Many analysts say the retirement proposals mesh with what appears to be Mr. Bush's long-term goal of removing most taxes on investment income and toward a system that essentially taxes only consumption."

So -- the rule should be, pay attention when the Id speaks. And thus spake Krauthammer in his latest. First, in typical Id style, he cannot believe -- he cannot believe at length, he cannot believe from his head to his boots -- that all of these, these obstacles have been thrown in the way of our desire. The pack desire. The desire that has sharpened his teeth. Well, it all has to come out somehow. And -- by the merest coincidence -- it comes out first in the form of rather mocking the fact that the U.S., at this crucial juncture, is being asked to take black nations seriously. The incredulity infects his writing. He trembles. Angola, Guinea, the Congo -- places that, eventually, we will have to recivilize with might and main, and here we are, bending over for them.

"The entire exercise is ridiculous, but for unfathomable reasons it matters to many, both at home and around the world, that the United States should have the permission of Guinea to risk the lives of American soldiers to rid the world -- and the long-suffering Iraqi people -- of a particularly vicious and dangerous tyrant."

To get permission of a black nation like Guinea -- does this upset the master-slave order of the world (the imperialist epoch now looked back upon so nostalgically) or what? And it can even become habit forming. We know how quickly the bully can deliquesce into the masochist. We know where that leads. It leads to perversity, and perversity leads to France. For who, really, is the problem here? Who stands between our virility and its consummation? A dozen times France. France, as Krauthammer says, which "pretends to great power status." A fake, then -- and, as all fakes to desire, a fetish, a deviation into sexual energies that we really don't want to go into in this post. Family reading, you know.

So, the Id, the loud mouth at the end of every canal and the beginning of every orifice, it wants to know -- how will we hurt this deviant? Krauthammer comes up with the appropriate answer:

"First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council -- with India and Japan as new permanent members -- to dilute France's disproportionate and anachronistic influence.

Second, there should be no role for France in Iraq, either during the war, should France change its mind, or after it. No peacekeeping. No oil contracts. And France should be last in line for loan repayment, after Russia. Russia, after all, simply has opposed our policy. It did not try to mobilize the world against us."

To exterminate them -- it is an old wet dream of the Ids. Bullied, he lies in bed, and dreams of torturing his enemies. Older, his aggressions somewhat under control, he merely verbalizes. Althought the thought of France "in line" -- LI believes that this is an image out of the Id's subconscious repertoire. You line up the prisoners to be executed. You line up the soldiers that you will order into battle. Lines are at once the preferred sexual position of power and the geometry of death in which power annihilates itself, and all within its graps. Scorched earth, death marches. That line, France at the end of it, humiliated as we were humiliated, bowing to Guinea.

Alas, meanwhile the super-ego is trying to tiptoe around those oil contracts. After all, the superego keeps telling everyone, this isn't a blood for oil transaction -- this is about democracy! Yet the question of the spoils rather begs the question of democracy. As in, isn't a force that dictates who the spoils belong to exercizing -- to put it at its most delicate, to put a Blair-ite fuzz on it -- a rather non-representative force? Because, of course, the great crusade for democracy -- a crusade in so many ways -- is confronted, at the outset, with the paradox that the people it democratizes might just operate in radically un-American ways. The people might not be sufficiently appreciative of the American libido, and we just don't like that. We cherish our Id.

Regrettably, this will require postponing democracy until political maturity can be expected among the Iraqi peoples such that they, too, can cherish the American Id. It sits on top of us all.

Remora

DEMS WAKE UP FROM YEARLONG SLEEP, ASK "WHA'S HAPPENING?"





Which should be the headline to the NYT piece on the hearing held to determine the 'price' of our beautiful occupation of Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz is the lead administration meretrician on the case (hey, shouldn't there be such a word? Meretrician -- it is an apt description for the present administration's way with figures). He comes a day after Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army let the cat out of the bag "that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq." Wolfowitz, a man who has made a vast study of war -- why, he's read several books on the subject by various Kagans -- is, of course, shocked that we would ever listen to some old no doubt senile duffer sitting on the Joint Chiefs of Staff who actually served in the military -- a service devoutly to be avoided by the key members of this administration when they were in their machine gun bearing primes. Here are a few grafs:

"Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion ."

And, from the end of the article, the ever more Rumsfeldian Rumsfeld:

"Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables.

Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I've already decided that. It's not useful."

The word fascist is over-used, mainly to describe theocrats of Osama bin Laden's pursuasion -- but surely the blending of bullying and rhetoric, here, the overtness of the lie and the incorrigibility to shame when the lie is found out, carries delicious hints of Mussolini.

Now, to wake up the Dems about this kind of thing, you have to creep up behind them and say Boo. You have to do that for about three years. They are the party of Rip Van Winkle, Li'l Abner, and the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus.



David Corn, doing the wrap up about the intellectual corruption rampant among the Dem establishment that lead up to the fatal vote last year allowing Bush to assume war powers as he will, drew up the painful chronicle of the business, killing the softly with their own quotes, these Dem senatorial types who voted Bush while claiming they were voting for, oh, the UN or something. And he put his finger on the reason the Dems failed in the midyear elections:





"My apologies. I should realize that war -- or pre-war -- does not always adhere to logic. But the meta-message of the Dems also is grounded in a fallacy. They argue Bush cannot be trusted to oversee the U.S. economy. Yet, at the same time, the Democrats -- meaning almost every national elected Democratic leader and 60 percent of the Democratic Senators and 40 percent of the House Democrats -- maintain Bush can indeed be trusted to precipitate and carry out a war. An insensitive, country-club-hanging corporate-lackey who will say anything and screw the middle-class to help out his rich pals, on one hand. But a wise and outstanding (moderate and deliberative, as Biden would say) defender of the nation who deserves loyalty and support, on the other. Can Democrats spell "disconnect"?"

....

We've been reading a book by the Washington Post correspondant, Nathan C. Randall, about the Kurds: After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness? Randall writes about the refugee rush after the last war and reminds us that the end of the Kurd disaster came when the French -- the French -- came out and pressed upon the reluctant Bush administration the decision to push back Saddam H. from the three provinces of Northern Iraq. Kouchner,Mitterand's junior minister for humanitarian affairs, did the groundwork to prepare this with Ankara.

What strikes us about this is that if the Bush administration had really wanted international support for a war against Iraq, it would have been very easy to build on this history. France would have had a much more difficult time opposing an action that incorporated a strong French precedent. History is woven out of gaps: and we think this gap is significant. Since it has been universally un-recalled, we wonder if this isn't motivated -- a piece of the unconscious floating behind a piece of amnesia. One of the goals, it seems, of the Bush people is to wean the country from the naive trust in such organizations as the UN -- which has been the object of rightwing vituperation since its founding by Roosevelt and various covert communists in his administration oh so long ago. If the Bush's really wanted to build a case that would convince France, the obvious move would be to cite precedents to which the French were not only party, but prime mover. But the more general Bush objective has obviously been to squelch any precedent for buffering American hegemony. When Aznar, Spain's prime minister and Bush's only friend in Spain, asks that Donald Rumsfeld be stifled, he is obviously thinking that the rulebook says, hey, we listen to our allies because, uh, they are our allies.
That rulebook was written by Walter Lippman and Emily Post.
The Bush's rulebook was written by Mario Puzo.