Daddy Dearest

It’s as though the pixilated people we see on television
are real and the actors are only secondary manifestations.
--The Theory That Ate The World

We have to start teaching ourselves not to be afraid
--William Faulkner

Jump down turn around
pick a bale of cotton,
jump down turn around
pick a bale a day
--Pick a Bale of Cotton
_______________

Ranger Question of the Day:
How can a Bible filled with warfare
lead to humanitarian (Christian) actions
in international relations?
_________________

Chapter six (“An Amiable Monster”) of Jacob Weisberg’s The Bush Tragedy (Random, 2008), mentions the role of Laurie Mylroie’s book, The Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America, in animating George Bush’s tragic crusade against Saddam Hussein’s government.

Unfortunately, the plot outlined by Mylroie was mostly cobbled hearsay presented as verified agenda. When did Saddam ever attack the U.S.? Even in Gulf War I his troops seemed more intent on running than fighting.

It is doubtful that Saddam ever intended to fight the U.S. – what could he have possibly gained? In a charitable light, our wars with Iraq are misinterpretations of intention and facts.

In addition to Vice President Cheney’s unfounded faith in Saddam’s biological weapons program, he followed Mylroie’s “unified field theory” of terrorism:

“. . . Mylroie argued that Saddam was behind every major terrorist attack against America in the 1990’s, including the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the OKC bombing in 1995.”

In Gulf War I, Saddam did not utilize chemical or biological weapons vs. the U.S., although he possessed the capability. He never exhibited the intent, though he possessed the means. Nevertheless, these facts did not dissuade Mylroie, who knew her audience.

Her book, published by the American Enterprise Institute (where she was a fellow) included jacket praise from Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, a veritable choir boy triumvirate for someone like Cheney. These men had an as-yet unbesmirched pedigree. Cheney “followed these men into the tortured pathways of Mylroie’s conspiracy theory, including her tantalizing suggestion that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had met with intelligence officers in Prague.”

This blind faith and bum rush to war is reminiscent of the scenario played out in President Reagan’s National Security Council chambers vis-à-vis the USSR.

Ranger recalls that for Reagan, the book was that of another right-wing fanatic -- Claire Sterling’s The Terror Network. Sterling’s book claimed that all terrorism was the result of Soviet leadership and influence, both operationally and functionally. In fact, he remembers Sterling's book was even integrated into Army coursework in the mid-late 80's.

Both Bush 43 and Gipper 40 accepted false premises from flawed books, and used these as the basis for aggressive U.S. foreign policy and governmental doctrine. Sterling was wrong in the 80’s and Mylroie is wrong now, but their doctrines were dear to warhawks and spawned disastrously misled national policy.

The problems and confusion in the current Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) can trace their genesis to the false assumptions of Sterling’s diatribe, which ushered in the idea of using one subjective book to justify military intervention (that is, excluding the always useful, Good Book.)

Both Reagan and Bush had false assumptions and beliefs that were based upon and buoyed up by solitary pieces of borderline fictional works. Both administrations accepted bibles that verified their dogma, flawed as it was.

Terrorism is not centrally organized, nor do terrorists follow clearly delineated organizational charts like good corporations. If they did, they wouldn’t be terrorists; they would be Coca Cola or the U.S. Federal Government (on a good day.)

U.S. leadership tries to measure groups by our yardstick, but these groups resist easy measure or quantification by definition. Terrorism is dynamic and amorphous: it is right-wing, left-wing, Islamist, Christian, separationist, Maoist, atheist, environmentalist, and pro- and con- animal rights. Terror groups have internal tension and dissent; there are hard-liners, middle-of-the-roaders and extreme elements.

In these ways, Terrorists resemble political parties. The best response to disrupt terrorist networks is to encourage their internal strife, thereby destabilizing the system.

This is a realistic course of action, more reasonable than trillion-dollar phony wars, but one unfortunately ignored by the Gippers and Dubyas. Unfortunatelty, it’s hard to get a rally going on game day for a dialog, versus a war.

But neither dialog nor war will work if not based in reality. Notre Dame couldn't win a War on Terror, even with their Hail Mary.