According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret US war against Al Qaeda and other radical groups. Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget and are deployed in 75 countries operating now. in the Philippines, Colombia, Somalia and Yemen in addition to continuing operations in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.
The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the under side of the national security doctrine of global engagement President Obama released in June.
The CIA drone attacks in Pakistan along with unilateral US raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen provide politically useful tools in this election year. Obama, one senior military aide said, has allowed “things that the previous (Bush) administration did not.” Special Operations commanders have also become a far more regular presence at the White House than they were under George W. Bush's administration.
The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from the White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said that the United States will not merely respond after the fact to a terrorist attack but will “take the fight to Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia and beyond.” That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to “take the battle to the enemy and confront the worst threats before they emerge”.
.
In a report this June, the United Nations question the Obama administration's authority under international law to conduct such raids, particularly when they kill innocent civilians. One possible legal justification - the permission of the countries in question - is complicated in places such as Pakistan and Yemen where the governments privately agree but do not publicly acknowledge the attacks. While the Obama administration continues Bush policy, it has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the President in 2001 to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” he determines, “planned, authorized committed or aided the September 11 attacks.” However, many of those currently being targeted particularly in places outside Afghanistan had nothing to do with 2001 attacks. Should one person, even the President of the United States, have the unilateral power to commit the nation to war?
.
The New York Times reported a senior United Nation's official said the United States appeared to think that it was "facing a unique threat from transnational terrorist networks" that justified its effort. But that could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out "competing drone attacks" outside their borders against people "labeled as terrorists by one group or another."
Showing posts with label bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bush. Show all posts
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obama Needs to Deliver Change
Obama Needs to Deliver Change
By Jerome Grossman
Obama's very effectiveness as a president is widely viewed as being in serious question. He is unable to convince people that the stimulus program is working. His health care reform program is under attack from a variety of interests. On the Afghanistan war, he seems indecisive.
Combined with his lack of executive experience, his seeming inability to resolve political problems affect his ability to govern. Obama’s quick trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid on the Olympic Games-and then to be rejected-seemed to indicate poor staff work and a trivialization of priorities. Allowing General Stanley McChrystal to lobby the public to affect the president's decision on Afghanistan weakened Obama’s authority. A confident president would have fired the general as Truman did with MacArthur and Bush did with Shinseki. The situation blended into comic relief when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while fighting two wars and planning on a third.
Around the world, supporters of Obama worry about his failure to change Bush policies and to solve pressing problems. They see demonstrations in front of the White House by Obama supporters disappointed that he hasn't changed the “don't ask, don't tell” military policy as he promised in the campaign. And those who want an end to the Afghan war or least an exit strategy are acting out in Congress and around the country.
The New Statesman, an authoritative British publication lists the problems that Obama has not solved. The whole world is watching.
1. He continued the Bush policy on narrow definition of “state secrets”, keeping information from the public unnecessarily.
2. He has retreated on a government-run health insurance plan.
3. He has failed to persuade Congress to take a substantive action on the emissions that affect climate change.
4. He has continued the Bush trillion dollar bank bailouts.
5. He failed to control bonuses for the executives of banks.
6. He made permanent the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
7. He has been unable to close the prison at Guantánamo; force-feeding operations have continued.
8. He has refused to release photographs of Bush administration “advanced interrogation” techniques and backed immunity for Bush officials involved in torture.
9. He has increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan and extended operations into Pakistan.
10. He has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass provisions of pills enacted into law.
11. Obama has failed to deliver to organized labor the changes in law promised for a generation.
Obama’s own supporters worry that he is not living up to his specific campaign promises and that when he tries to do so he does not seem to know how to use his power. Obama is a very popular leader of a party that won a landslide election in 2008. He has a team of centrist advisors headed by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an experienced team that knows the political ropes and the pressures necessary to get things done in Washington. While they understand political hardball, they seem to be unwilling to use it to energize the serious change that Obama inspired in his sensational campaign. The alternative strategy would involve the development of a mass grass roots movement to promote very specific goals for peace and economic justice.
By Jerome Grossman
Obama's very effectiveness as a president is widely viewed as being in serious question. He is unable to convince people that the stimulus program is working. His health care reform program is under attack from a variety of interests. On the Afghanistan war, he seems indecisive.
Combined with his lack of executive experience, his seeming inability to resolve political problems affect his ability to govern. Obama’s quick trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago's bid on the Olympic Games-and then to be rejected-seemed to indicate poor staff work and a trivialization of priorities. Allowing General Stanley McChrystal to lobby the public to affect the president's decision on Afghanistan weakened Obama’s authority. A confident president would have fired the general as Truman did with MacArthur and Bush did with Shinseki. The situation blended into comic relief when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while fighting two wars and planning on a third.
Around the world, supporters of Obama worry about his failure to change Bush policies and to solve pressing problems. They see demonstrations in front of the White House by Obama supporters disappointed that he hasn't changed the “don't ask, don't tell” military policy as he promised in the campaign. And those who want an end to the Afghan war or least an exit strategy are acting out in Congress and around the country.
The New Statesman, an authoritative British publication lists the problems that Obama has not solved. The whole world is watching.
1. He continued the Bush policy on narrow definition of “state secrets”, keeping information from the public unnecessarily.
2. He has retreated on a government-run health insurance plan.
3. He has failed to persuade Congress to take a substantive action on the emissions that affect climate change.
4. He has continued the Bush trillion dollar bank bailouts.
5. He failed to control bonuses for the executives of banks.
6. He made permanent the Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003.
7. He has been unable to close the prison at Guantánamo; force-feeding operations have continued.
8. He has refused to release photographs of Bush administration “advanced interrogation” techniques and backed immunity for Bush officials involved in torture.
9. He has increased U.S. troops in Afghanistan and extended operations into Pakistan.
10. He has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass provisions of pills enacted into law.
11. Obama has failed to deliver to organized labor the changes in law promised for a generation.
Obama’s own supporters worry that he is not living up to his specific campaign promises and that when he tries to do so he does not seem to know how to use his power. Obama is a very popular leader of a party that won a landslide election in 2008. He has a team of centrist advisors headed by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an experienced team that knows the political ropes and the pressures necessary to get things done in Washington. While they understand political hardball, they seem to be unwilling to use it to energize the serious change that Obama inspired in his sensational campaign. The alternative strategy would involve the development of a mass grass roots movement to promote very specific goals for peace and economic justice.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
So What If Texas Secedes?
So What If Texas Secedes?
By Jerome Grossman
Most politicians, analysts, and media are giving President Barack Obama good grades for his first one hundred days in office. With the general public Obama seems more popular than ever as measured by his standing in the opinion polls. And, in spite of the deepening recession, more than 50% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.
A notable exception is Governor Rick Perry of Texas who objects to Obama's policies so deeply that he has suggested that Texas might end its association with the United States of America and strike out on its own. Perry insists on the right of Texas to secede from the Union, violating the core principle of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
So far Perry has not fired on Fort Sumter or any U.S. military installation in Texas but we should be prepared. His primary objection to federal policy is the stimulus package designed to energize the economy but it appears that he will still take the money for his state. At the same time, Perry is trying to persuade other Republican governors to talk of secession as a political tactic to rally the depressed conservative base.
So what if Texas actually secedes? We would still visit there, of course, and would be friendly, not as friendly as with Canada, but somewhat warmer than with Cuba and Venezuela. Would independent Texas give up NASA and the next voyage to the moon? In what league would the Dallas Cowboys play? Would they still be “America's team?” Governor Perry points out that Texas has the right to split into five separate states, each with its own president, enough for every member of the Bush family. And the two Bush ex-presidents of U.S.A. could cap their careers by running for president of an independent Texas. Then each could build second presidential libraries, at least one of them featuring mementos of torture.
Texas as an independent country would give the U.S. several tempting options. We could build a fence on the border to discourage immigration from Texas. We could invade Texas for oil or to change the regime there. And George W. Bush would be the last Texan to be president of the United States.
By Jerome Grossman
Most politicians, analysts, and media are giving President Barack Obama good grades for his first one hundred days in office. With the general public Obama seems more popular than ever as measured by his standing in the opinion polls. And, in spite of the deepening recession, more than 50% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction.
A notable exception is Governor Rick Perry of Texas who objects to Obama's policies so deeply that he has suggested that Texas might end its association with the United States of America and strike out on its own. Perry insists on the right of Texas to secede from the Union, violating the core principle of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln.
So far Perry has not fired on Fort Sumter or any U.S. military installation in Texas but we should be prepared. His primary objection to federal policy is the stimulus package designed to energize the economy but it appears that he will still take the money for his state. At the same time, Perry is trying to persuade other Republican governors to talk of secession as a political tactic to rally the depressed conservative base.
So what if Texas actually secedes? We would still visit there, of course, and would be friendly, not as friendly as with Canada, but somewhat warmer than with Cuba and Venezuela. Would independent Texas give up NASA and the next voyage to the moon? In what league would the Dallas Cowboys play? Would they still be “America's team?” Governor Perry points out that Texas has the right to split into five separate states, each with its own president, enough for every member of the Bush family. And the two Bush ex-presidents of U.S.A. could cap their careers by running for president of an independent Texas. Then each could build second presidential libraries, at least one of them featuring mementos of torture.
Texas as an independent country would give the U.S. several tempting options. We could build a fence on the border to discourage immigration from Texas. We could invade Texas for oil or to change the regime there. And George W. Bush would be the last Texan to be president of the United States.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Another Look at Waterboarding
Another Look at Waterboarding
By Jerome Grossman
Forgive me for pursuing waterboarding torture now that the subject has slipped from public attention. I can't let it go because there is an outside chance that one of my ancestors was a victim of waterboard torture 700 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition. That was pure evil then, it is pure evil now.
Beyond that motivating factor, I may have surmised an explanation for the illegal destruction of the videotapes by the CIA of interrogations of prisoners during which extreme methods were used, including prolonged exposure to cold, heat, nudity, physical discomfort, and waterboarding. In waterboarding, water is poured over a prisoner's mouth and nose to produce a feeling of suffocation. Sometimes, in the absence of restraining equipment, the prisoner's head is pushed into a toilet until he says “uncle” or “Osama bin Laden” or whatever confession is sought by the torturers.
According to intelligence officials, interrogation tapes were destroyed out of concern for the physical and legal safety of CIA agents who appear on the tapes. However, the physical danger would be nil as long as the tapes remained in the possession of the CIA; the legal exposure would be protected by the secret legal opinions of the Justice Department that waterboarding and other pressures are not torture and are lawful acts. These opinions rely on the President's wartime powers, enabling him to contravene the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual which protect prisoners of war.
Let me suggest alternative explanations for the unauthorized destruction of the videotapes, destruction in violation of government regulations and a specific court order. Isn't it likely that the repeated use of waterboarding that brings the prisoner to the verge of suffocation could actually have resulted in death by drowning or heart attack or fright? In that case, destroying the tape would be a cover-up.
Another possibility is that the tapes might reveal that the punishing techniques were not effective. President Bush and other government spokesmen have claimed that CIA harsh interrogation has produced crucial information but experienced FBI agents have opposed the use of coercive techniques as counterproductive and unreliable. For the tapes to decide these differences, they would have to prove that accurate information was obtained, information important for operations. If the tapes did not make the case, then the tapes had to be destroyed to protect the careers of those who've made wrong decisions.
The moral and legal questions about torture cannot be put aside. For generations, Americans have been appalled and sickened by the use of torture by other countries. We like to think that America is above such reprehensible conduct. It will take a thorough housecleaning and change in policy to restore our self respect, the first step in achieving the respect of the people of the rest of the world.
By Jerome Grossman
Forgive me for pursuing waterboarding torture now that the subject has slipped from public attention. I can't let it go because there is an outside chance that one of my ancestors was a victim of waterboard torture 700 years ago during the Spanish Inquisition. That was pure evil then, it is pure evil now.
Beyond that motivating factor, I may have surmised an explanation for the illegal destruction of the videotapes by the CIA of interrogations of prisoners during which extreme methods were used, including prolonged exposure to cold, heat, nudity, physical discomfort, and waterboarding. In waterboarding, water is poured over a prisoner's mouth and nose to produce a feeling of suffocation. Sometimes, in the absence of restraining equipment, the prisoner's head is pushed into a toilet until he says “uncle” or “Osama bin Laden” or whatever confession is sought by the torturers.
According to intelligence officials, interrogation tapes were destroyed out of concern for the physical and legal safety of CIA agents who appear on the tapes. However, the physical danger would be nil as long as the tapes remained in the possession of the CIA; the legal exposure would be protected by the secret legal opinions of the Justice Department that waterboarding and other pressures are not torture and are lawful acts. These opinions rely on the President's wartime powers, enabling him to contravene the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual which protect prisoners of war.
Let me suggest alternative explanations for the unauthorized destruction of the videotapes, destruction in violation of government regulations and a specific court order. Isn't it likely that the repeated use of waterboarding that brings the prisoner to the verge of suffocation could actually have resulted in death by drowning or heart attack or fright? In that case, destroying the tape would be a cover-up.
Another possibility is that the tapes might reveal that the punishing techniques were not effective. President Bush and other government spokesmen have claimed that CIA harsh interrogation has produced crucial information but experienced FBI agents have opposed the use of coercive techniques as counterproductive and unreliable. For the tapes to decide these differences, they would have to prove that accurate information was obtained, information important for operations. If the tapes did not make the case, then the tapes had to be destroyed to protect the careers of those who've made wrong decisions.
The moral and legal questions about torture cannot be put aside. For generations, Americans have been appalled and sickened by the use of torture by other countries. We like to think that America is above such reprehensible conduct. It will take a thorough housecleaning and change in policy to restore our self respect, the first step in achieving the respect of the people of the rest of the world.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Iranians Have Disappointed Us
The Iranians Have Disappointed Us
By Jerome Grossman
Gosh, what a disappointment. You can't even trust the CIA anymore. Imagine, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Where is George Tenet when we need him - to give us a slam dunk or whatever we asked for? Or Saint Colin Powell who would vouch for the war program after some sobbing.
And the intelligence community has admitted it was wrong. That is no way to run a government operation. Rule number one: never admit a mistake. We pay them $44 billion a year to do what we order so the least they can do is give us the intelligence we need to get other nations to do what we want. Or else. As Don Rumsfeld always said, “You go with the intelligence you have, true and accurate or not. And if the other nations are not guilty of what we accuse them, they will be some day, so why wait?”
Sure, I said in October 2007, “If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Knowledge is very dangerous. I learned that at Yale and Harvard Business School. It prevented me from making a buck in three oil businesses I ran (interesting pun) in God's country, Texas. They tell me the knowledge to make a nuke is in the libraries. We have to do something about libraries.
My staff told me not to talk about World War III, that Iran didn't compare to the original axis of evil, Germany, Japan and Italy. But it sounded so good, such a big deal, put me on par with my old man, that World War II hero. Besides, even though Iran is a small country, it might unite the 1.3 billion Muslims against Christian America. Fighting World War III would put me on Mount Rushmore with Teddy Roosevelt, and save the American eagle like President Wilson in World War I and FDR in World War II.
I don't know why the Muslims won't allow us to build military bases in their countries. We already have 737 bases in 130 countries. And everybody is happy. That's spreading democracy just like God told us too. And if anyone tells us to go home, resisting the will of God, we do God's work by cutting off their trade or their bank accounts or their heads (joke), whichever is easier.
The new intelligence report was given to me just last week, so I did not know the new findings when I threatened Iran with the U.S. fleet at anchor in the Persian Gulf, loaded with missiles, planes and nuclear weapons waiting to kick the shit out of the Iranians. Our nuclear weapons are a force for good, for democracy, and the National Football League that I watch every Sunday. How about them Patriots? Could a liberal like Ted Kennedy play that game?
Well, last August, before I declared World War III, Admiral Mike McConnell walked into my office and told me that there was new intelligence about Iran and nukes. I didn't ask him the bottom line, because the typing hadn't even been completed and the Redskins were coming on the tube. Besides, I would never interfere with intelligence collecting. I make it up as I go along
Now, I find out that the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapons program because of a cost - benefit approach. I remember those words from Harvard Business School. That proves the Iranians are unpatriotic and dangerous. My great country, the only superpower on God's earth, maybe on the entire universe, never, ever, stops building guns and ammunition of every size and capability. How else could we spread the word of God and prepare for his return?
By Jerome Grossman
Gosh, what a disappointment. You can't even trust the CIA anymore. Imagine, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Where is George Tenet when we need him - to give us a slam dunk or whatever we asked for? Or Saint Colin Powell who would vouch for the war program after some sobbing.
And the intelligence community has admitted it was wrong. That is no way to run a government operation. Rule number one: never admit a mistake. We pay them $44 billion a year to do what we order so the least they can do is give us the intelligence we need to get other nations to do what we want. Or else. As Don Rumsfeld always said, “You go with the intelligence you have, true and accurate or not. And if the other nations are not guilty of what we accuse them, they will be some day, so why wait?”
Sure, I said in October 2007, “If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” Knowledge is very dangerous. I learned that at Yale and Harvard Business School. It prevented me from making a buck in three oil businesses I ran (interesting pun) in God's country, Texas. They tell me the knowledge to make a nuke is in the libraries. We have to do something about libraries.
My staff told me not to talk about World War III, that Iran didn't compare to the original axis of evil, Germany, Japan and Italy. But it sounded so good, such a big deal, put me on par with my old man, that World War II hero. Besides, even though Iran is a small country, it might unite the 1.3 billion Muslims against Christian America. Fighting World War III would put me on Mount Rushmore with Teddy Roosevelt, and save the American eagle like President Wilson in World War I and FDR in World War II.
I don't know why the Muslims won't allow us to build military bases in their countries. We already have 737 bases in 130 countries. And everybody is happy. That's spreading democracy just like God told us too. And if anyone tells us to go home, resisting the will of God, we do God's work by cutting off their trade or their bank accounts or their heads (joke), whichever is easier.
The new intelligence report was given to me just last week, so I did not know the new findings when I threatened Iran with the U.S. fleet at anchor in the Persian Gulf, loaded with missiles, planes and nuclear weapons waiting to kick the shit out of the Iranians. Our nuclear weapons are a force for good, for democracy, and the National Football League that I watch every Sunday. How about them Patriots? Could a liberal like Ted Kennedy play that game?
Well, last August, before I declared World War III, Admiral Mike McConnell walked into my office and told me that there was new intelligence about Iran and nukes. I didn't ask him the bottom line, because the typing hadn't even been completed and the Redskins were coming on the tube. Besides, I would never interfere with intelligence collecting. I make it up as I go along
Now, I find out that the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapons program because of a cost - benefit approach. I remember those words from Harvard Business School. That proves the Iranians are unpatriotic and dangerous. My great country, the only superpower on God's earth, maybe on the entire universe, never, ever, stops building guns and ammunition of every size and capability. How else could we spread the word of God and prepare for his return?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
George W. Bush is Happier
George W. Bush is Happier
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush enjoys off - the - record lunches with favored journalists from time to time. One of the rules for the occasion provides for absolutely no direct quotations, but allows for reference to the matters discussed. At a recent lunch, Bush seemed more buoyant and especially interested in presidential politics and the 2008 election. He expects Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and probably the general election. He did not seem too perturbed by the prospect. He indicated that the Democratic candidates were coming around to his point of view on the Iraq war and that Hillary would continue his Iraq policy once she appreciates the dangers and difficulties. What may have caught Bush’s attention was Hillary’s statement that she “hoped” to withdraw troops by 2013 as well as her plan for a residual US military force. Here is Hillary's latest plan for a residual U.S. force of undetermined size in Iraq with no time limit: To protect the U.S.Embassy and other U.S. installations: to train the Iraqi army, to fight insurgents, and to deter Iran.
Bush thinks that a Democratic President continuing the occupation would validate his Iraq policy and restore his reputation and standing in history. His model is President Harry Truman, like Bush lowly regarded at the end of his presidency, now a hero of the Cold War in some history books. Bush hinted at some back channel advice emanating from the White House to the Clinton campaign.
Could it be from Bush to his father to buddy Bill Clinton to Hillary?
By Jerome Grossman
President Bush enjoys off - the - record lunches with favored journalists from time to time. One of the rules for the occasion provides for absolutely no direct quotations, but allows for reference to the matters discussed. At a recent lunch, Bush seemed more buoyant and especially interested in presidential politics and the 2008 election. He expects Hillary Rodham Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and probably the general election. He did not seem too perturbed by the prospect. He indicated that the Democratic candidates were coming around to his point of view on the Iraq war and that Hillary would continue his Iraq policy once she appreciates the dangers and difficulties. What may have caught Bush’s attention was Hillary’s statement that she “hoped” to withdraw troops by 2013 as well as her plan for a residual US military force. Here is Hillary's latest plan for a residual U.S. force of undetermined size in Iraq with no time limit: To protect the U.S.Embassy and other U.S. installations: to train the Iraqi army, to fight insurgents, and to deter Iran.
Bush thinks that a Democratic President continuing the occupation would validate his Iraq policy and restore his reputation and standing in history. His model is President Harry Truman, like Bush lowly regarded at the end of his presidency, now a hero of the Cold War in some history books. Bush hinted at some back channel advice emanating from the White House to the Clinton campaign.
Could it be from Bush to his father to buddy Bill Clinton to Hillary?
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Blair, Bush and Democracy
Blair, Bush and Democracy
By Jerome Grossman
After more than a decade as Prime Minister, super politician Tony Blair has resigned his powerful leadership position under the pressure of fallen approval ratings from the British public. Now that Blair is out of power, political observers have begun to analyze his tenure and its meaning for democracy in Britain and around the world.
How was Blair able to retain the leadership of his party and the nation in the face of strong opposition to his Iraq policy by a margin of more than two to one, opposition that has been passionate for years? If he had an ideological blind spot on the war, why didn’t his party oust him when he began to lose seats in the House of Commons?
In a democratic system all power flows from the voters. They vote for members of Parliament, whose responsibility it is to represent the masses. The members in turn elect a leader who takes power when he has a majority. The Prime Minister, after winning a general election, can do pretty much what he wishes. Party favors and party loyalty give the PM power virtually unchecked. Blair whipped Parliament into supporting the Iraq war obtaining 578 out of 646 seats, selling a short war against a weak opponent, a war sponsored by big brother George W. Bush and his invincible superpower. It did not work out as anticipated and the British people want to get out of the war – now.
But why is it so difficult for the politicians who constantly praise the idea of democracy to bow to the will of their own people. British and American politicians find reasons to continue the occupation of Iraq even though the people regard the war as a mistake and want to save the lives of their soldiers. Here are some of the reasons: the Iraqi factions will kill each other; they will kill our troops on the way out; they will seize our equipment; they will create chaos in the region; they will sell their oil to someone else; they will conquer the world with their headscarves and AK-47s, etc, etc. Leaders have a perfect right to try to convince the people on policy but there must be a time limit to prevent dictatorial conduct. How many years of fruitless fighting without popular support?
Blair metamorphosed himself from a politician who prided himself on his sensitivity to public opinion when running for office to one who prided himself on his ability to ignore it when he achieved power. So did George W. Bush. When defying public opinion Blair and Bush regularly said, “I know I'm right about this, I will be true to myself.” Both are proud of their stubbornness and even insist that they are doing God's work. Are they practicing a modern version of “L’ Etat, c’est moi” (I am the state) and the divine right “Dieu et mon droit” (By God and my Right)
Both have succumbed to a form of magical thinking about their ability to will away obstacles and opposition. In their resolute belief in themselves, not the will of the public, they attack the very basis of Democracy, a decent respect for the opinions of the people.
By Jerome Grossman
After more than a decade as Prime Minister, super politician Tony Blair has resigned his powerful leadership position under the pressure of fallen approval ratings from the British public. Now that Blair is out of power, political observers have begun to analyze his tenure and its meaning for democracy in Britain and around the world.
How was Blair able to retain the leadership of his party and the nation in the face of strong opposition to his Iraq policy by a margin of more than two to one, opposition that has been passionate for years? If he had an ideological blind spot on the war, why didn’t his party oust him when he began to lose seats in the House of Commons?
In a democratic system all power flows from the voters. They vote for members of Parliament, whose responsibility it is to represent the masses. The members in turn elect a leader who takes power when he has a majority. The Prime Minister, after winning a general election, can do pretty much what he wishes. Party favors and party loyalty give the PM power virtually unchecked. Blair whipped Parliament into supporting the Iraq war obtaining 578 out of 646 seats, selling a short war against a weak opponent, a war sponsored by big brother George W. Bush and his invincible superpower. It did not work out as anticipated and the British people want to get out of the war – now.
But why is it so difficult for the politicians who constantly praise the idea of democracy to bow to the will of their own people. British and American politicians find reasons to continue the occupation of Iraq even though the people regard the war as a mistake and want to save the lives of their soldiers. Here are some of the reasons: the Iraqi factions will kill each other; they will kill our troops on the way out; they will seize our equipment; they will create chaos in the region; they will sell their oil to someone else; they will conquer the world with their headscarves and AK-47s, etc, etc. Leaders have a perfect right to try to convince the people on policy but there must be a time limit to prevent dictatorial conduct. How many years of fruitless fighting without popular support?
Blair metamorphosed himself from a politician who prided himself on his sensitivity to public opinion when running for office to one who prided himself on his ability to ignore it when he achieved power. So did George W. Bush. When defying public opinion Blair and Bush regularly said, “I know I'm right about this, I will be true to myself.” Both are proud of their stubbornness and even insist that they are doing God's work. Are they practicing a modern version of “L’ Etat, c’est moi” (I am the state) and the divine right “Dieu et mon droit” (By God and my Right)
Both have succumbed to a form of magical thinking about their ability to will away obstacles and opposition. In their resolute belief in themselves, not the will of the public, they attack the very basis of Democracy, a decent respect for the opinions of the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
