HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
John Chuckman
October
4, 2003
I
don't know how many times I've seen articles about Wesley Clark making a
formidable opponent for George Bush. And I agree, he likely would, but so what?
I
too am sick of the sound of Bush's voice. My radio dial is turned five words
into any sound clip from this dangerous half-wit with a speech impediment, but
what can be gained by replacing him with Clark?
For
people in high positions, criticizing Bush now on Iraq is cheap talk. The
idiotic, destructive war is done. Americans must live with its consequences and
responsibilities no matter who is President. A decent alternative to Bush
demands more than a few cheap words of criticism.
You
might think the people writing these pieces see Clark as the embodiment of
America's silly myths about citizen-soldiers, a kind of television-age
Cincinnatus, who could defeat one of the most lamentable, wrong-headed
President in American history.
Clark
is not a citizen soldier. He is a professional, a lifetime paid killer. And he
has done a good deal of killing. His record just in the very brief and
relatively small conflict in Serbia is filled with dead non-combatants, from
busloads of cremated civilians to people blown apart at a downtown television
station. I understand his thinking in doing these things. I just totally
disagree with it.
His
record there is marked also with unbelievably poor judgment. The attack he
ordered against a large Russian force was deranged. Thank God, a tough old
British general dared to disobey the order. Even the bombing of the Chinese
embassy was never satisfactorily explained. His documented fraternization with
a vicious war criminal appalled many Europeans.
Generals
of any kind rarely make good democratic leaders. They have lived their entire
adult lives barking orders at folks trained to respond to barking, basic
military training having great similarities to obedience school for dogs. The
entire purpose of much of this training is to efface individual will and
initiative.
That's
why generals come from places like West Point. They are imbued with an ideology
not intended for enlisted men, an ideology of officers' class, privilege, and
authority.
Any
military organization functions a great deal like a Soviet-style government.
Direction comes from above, the Pentagon representing the quintessence of a
centrally-planned economy. Waste and inefficiency come on a colossal scale. The
waste goes largely unquestioned, because patriotism covers a many evils or, at
any rate, intimidates a multitude of critics.
Civilian
government simply does not work that way. There is more than a tinge of wishful
thinking that people who bark orders can "make the trains run on
time." It rarely turns out that way.
General-President
Eisenhower, one of the better of a bad lot in American history, despite his
personal charm and common-sense words, displayed many dangerous qualities. He
worked with the appalling Dulles brothers, gentlemen whose thinking perhaps
more closely resembled their Soviet counterparts than any democratic officials.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was planned and organized under Eisenhower's
stewardship. He took many risks with the Soviet Union, including the disastrous
flight of a U-2, shot down just before an important summit. A number of
democratically-elected governments were toppled by Eisenhower's government. Men
like the Shah of Iran, torturer of countless thousands, were put into power
over democratically elected officials. He kept the eerie, pathological Richard
Nixon on the ticket when there was a sound excuse to drop him.
What
most Americans recall about Eisenhower was that the nation grew in the postwar
period, that he was affable, and that he had a cute nickname. Some recall his
powerful words on the military-industrial complex, a fair warning that has been
utterly ignored.
What
do we know about Clark? He discovered what party he belonged to in a kind of
epiphany at about sixty years of age. This suggests either retardation or
lying, and I'm pretty sure he is a bright fellow. What a silly nonsense to
believe this. Has he never voted in elections or contributed to a party? Of
course, what has really happened is that only the Democrats offer Clark the
opportunity to rise to Commander-in-Chief.
Clark
senses Bush is increasingly vulnerable, and I believe he is right. Bush's
vulnerability will increase as the staggering costs of invading and occupying
Iraq become apparent and as months of melodramatic reports of ambushed
Americans continue.
What
will America get for its treasure and blood? A more stable Middle East? Look at
the disastrous situation of the Palestinians today and say that with a straight
face. Sharon has been supported through a relentless campaign of state-terror
in the name of fighting terror. The very economy of Israel is at risk owing to
its trying to behave like a world power on the pocket book of a moderate-size
American state. And peace remains further away than at any time in recent
memory, a new poll showing Israelis voicing despair, something the Palestinians
have lived with for decades.
Consider
the festering resentments of tens of thousands of Iraqis bitterly suffering for
years under the impact of Bush's delusions. Crime and murder have risen to
unprecedented levels in Iraq, increased by thousands of percent over what they
were before Bush smashed public order. Many discontents, uncertainties, and
internal rivalries have been released, and new enemies are in the making.
In
Afghanistan, a costly mess remains. The figurehead president of the country,
who has little reason to cause Bush grief, himself admits it will take years to
gain stability. The production of opium poppies has exploded since the Taliban
were pushed aside. Perhaps, American soldiers will come home as they did from
Vietnam, addicted to drugs. That was, after all, one of the hidden costs of
America's insane Vietnam crusade: farm boys from every corner of America
returned home using drugs they never had heard of before.
On
top of all this, the American economy is sour, and I don't mean just current
GDP growth. Longer-term matters are at stake. Clinton's surpluses have been
squandered, deficits in trade and expenditure have reached intimidating levels,
and the economy is under the shadow of unknowably-vast obligations abroad,
including everything from billions in bribes for foreign support in Iraq to
open-ended contracts for associates of Bush and Cheney.
Bush
officials are shown daily to be remarkably petty and corrupt. Imagine a neocon
outing a CIA agent? It's the kind of act for which they would have nailed
Clinton to a cross. But these nasty people's lust for vengeance and getting
even drives them to do about anything.
The
national-security apparatus they have put into place is horrible and dangerous
and can only increasingly be seen to be so as it operates.
Yes,
Bush will be vulnerable. So why waste the opportunity on Clark? There have to
be better people.
Unfortunately,
American national politics are about as agile as the Pentagon's bloated bulk.
An American presidential campaign takes forever, often coming to resemble in
cost and duration preparations for the landing at Normandy. The actual
conditions at the time of the election can only be guessed at in such a lengthy
process. It is one of the more foolish and costly parts of American politics,
but it is the reality people must work under. So, a handsome general with no
political baggage who criticizes the President about Iraq a little bit looks
like a good bet.
And
that is how America is run, and those who dream of something else only hope
against hope.
John Chuckman lives in Canada and is
former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company. He writes frequently
for Yellow Times.org and other publications.
* The
First Two Years of Insanity
* The
Perfumed Prince and Other Political Tales
* A
George Will Follies Review
* The
Painful Horrors of Political Autism
* Enron-Style
Management in a Dangerously Complex World
* The Real
Clash of Civilizations: Liberals Versus the Crypto-Nazis
* Banality,
Bombast, and Blood
* Through A
Glass Darkly: An Interpretation of Bush's Character
* Of
Blair, Hussein, and Genocide