Current Events Round Up: Tangled Webs

There is a lot of interesting stuff in the air:
Patrick Fitzgerald just requested a new grand jury
The Jack Abramoff investigation continues to show the he who owns the gold makes the rules
The Chemical weapons found in Iraq! (Unfortunately, it was the US using white phosphorous in Fallujah)
Bush threatens to veto a ban on torture (why veto a ban on something we don't do?)

I could easily spend a good number of words on any of the above, but I've decided to devote this post to another big issue - a not so current event, but one that is currently prominent in the news: the Bush administration's PR campaign in the lead up to the current Iraq War.

The White House is furiously fighting back against its critics who have now found a loud and concerted voice - funny how polls help reinforce the spinal column. (WSJ/NBC poll, 57% "think that President Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war.") While they're two years late, it's nice to see the questions finally being raised in a very public fashion.

Before launching into my commentary it is worth revisiting the history of how got to where we are. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks the administration sought to go after the terrorists in a big way. The first and easiest target was Afghanistan. The link was easy to draw and the public could easily buy in to military action there. Afghanistan, however, was never high on the administration's foreign policy hit list as compared with Iraq. Many high level officials were itching to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein for reasons which I will discuss below. Rumsfeld and Cheney were chief among those, but there were many, many more.

The problem with invading Iraq, though, was that there was no good rationale for it. It neither was an imminent threat to the United States, nor one to any of its neighbors. There was no clear line from Iraq to 9/11 or the Al-Qaida network. The challenge, then, was convince the public and congress that military action in Iraq was necessary for national and regional security. Luckily for the administration they had several factors in their favor, notably the national mood after 9/11. This could be leveraged to make a case for war by simple use of propaganda and public manipulation.

Another factor in the administration's favor was the timing. 2002 was a major mid-term election and making Iraq and terrorism a campaign issue would prove to be a successful strategy in manipulating public discourse away from domestic issues and towards foreign military action, an issue which is traditionally a Republican strength. The War Powers Act was easily passed granting Bush the ability to invade at will and Democrats were crushed in the ensuing November elections.

At this point it is worth noting the rhetoric, even if it was given with a wink and a nudge, for the war powers. The line of reasoning was that the threat of force was necessary in order to force Iraq to allow in weapons inspectors. This is actually a very important point, because the primary rationale for war was the presence of WMDs and the possibility that Hussein would share them with terrorist enemies of the United States. Remember the two main thrusts of the argument: WMDs and terrorist ties.

It was all downhill from there. The weapons inspectors were allowed in (remember Hans Blix and Muhammed Al-Barradei?) and the administration continued to push the WMD and terrorist lines. You may recall Bush's allusion to Niger Uranium in the State of the Union address and Cheney's continued instistance the Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. I'll drill down on the specifics later, but those are fairly memorable talking points.

In early Spring of 2003 the push for war was running into a problem. Not only was there a large and vocal global opposition, the weapons inspectors weren't finding any weapons. Not only were there no weapons, there were no production facilities, no delivery mechanisms, nothing. Condaleeza Rice was grasping at aluminum tubes and Colin Powell was worrying us with model airplanes. If inspections were to continue, they would find exactly what we found post-invasion - nothing. With the rationale for war evaporating and a hot Iraqi summer on the way, it was important to invade before the public cottoned on that Iraq not only had no weapons and no ties to Al-Qaida, but its conventional military was a wreck having never recovered from the first gulf war and debilitated from years of sanctions.

It was under those circumstances that we invaded Iraq, apparently to liberate the Iraqi people from a tyrant (which Saddam was) and to bring stability, democracy and peace to the region (which we haven't.) The roses and candy we were supposed to be greeted with were a myth, the cost of the war grossly understated and the number of troops to actually be successful weren't deployed. Now, two years later, a majority of the American people are starting to grow tired of a failed foreign policy based on half-truths and rosy predictions (at best.)

That is a brief summary, I'd like to fill in the many source citations, which I may get to, but since this is a blog and not an academic thesis, it will suffice for now. Needless to say, they are out there, I'm just suffering under time restrictions.

Neo-conservatism and War
I mentioned above that I would write about why Iraq invasion was high on the foreign policy objectives of the administration. A good start would be to visit the website of The Project for the New American Century Their statement of purpose is short and worth a read - be careful to read between the lines, though (not to mention examining the signatories.) This philosophy is based on overwhelming force to "[extend] an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." A key concept worth noting is force projection - the ability to deliver overwhelming force anywhere in the world at any time. In other words, when diplomacy can't get us what we want, use the military. Note the order of priorities: Security, prosperity, principles. Security is narrowly defined as military security - forget about being secure from the ravages of disease, poverty or injustice. Prosperity, as well, is narrowly defined. Protecting our large corporate interests - mom and pop don't count. What about our principles? (and who belongs to this "our" they are talking about?) Clearly "our" principles are Machiavellian - whatever means will get us the first two ends is justified.

The specifics of Iraq, then, come into focus quite sharply. An invasion of Iraq projects our military might into the heart of the Middle East. Easy access is granted to Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia as well as being within striking distance of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Iraq is also key to oil production in the Middle East. It has vast oil fields, is an OPEC member, has gulf and pipeline access. Controlling these factors brings leverage to OPEC, secures our oil interests in the gulf and ensures that we have access to a vital security resource when we need it.

Make no mistake, oil is very much a part of the Iraq strategy. Our oil reserves were tapped in the wake of Katrina because imported oil could not make its way via gulf ports. China is consuming more oil every year as its industry grows and more affluent citizens exchange bicycles for cars and production is unable to keep up with demand. To deny oil has anything to do with Iraq is to turn a blind eye to the stated reasons for the war - any of which could be applied to a dozen states around the world.

Neo-conservative philosophy is rooted in the desire to maintain American dominance in the world militarily, economically and politically. The tactics employed are largely military-based reinforced by economic force projection. It is a philosophy rooted in fear - the fear of not being in control, of not being able to protect "our interests" at home and abroad. It seems that adherents to neo-conservativism have wrapped their identity in being "number one." Any possibility that the United States may not, in fact, be the preeminent superpower is not only a blow to their personal interests, but their person. Their is no humility, no sense of cooperation or compassion - only us and our interests.
For more on the roots of neo-conservative foreign policy look into realism and neo-realism. Again, the focus is on "national interests" and a pessimistic worldview. By pessimistic I mean that each state competes for its own interests and no state cooperates except for its own good.

The Iraq PR Campaign
With the motives and philosophies laid out, it is easy to see how the PR campaign was waged. I use the term "PR campaign" because it was a slick amalgam of fact and fiction. Words were carefully chosen to be precise and accurate, yet lead to false presumptions. Examining the words of administration officials leave plenty of outs for those who wish to claim that the statements weren't lies, yet it was clear that they were not made in good faith.

There are efforts underway at various sites around the web to document the specifics, so I won't go into deep detail. For one, I would be woefully incomplete and for another, I just don't have time to go over the massive amount of material. I would, however, like to go over a couple of the major canards laid out by the administration.

The first is the nuclear argument. The possibility of chemical weapons in Iraq was a big question mark to intelligence agencies. Some thought they may be there, others weren't so sure. Regardless, the threat wasn't enough to sell the war to the public. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, sent collective shivers across the country. Couple this with the second major deception - ties with Al-Qaida - and the public was ready to send in the troops (well, at least a majority of them were.) The only problem with the nuclear argument was that it was extremely weak. That's why the Niger Uranium story, Joseph Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times and those famous sixteen words in the State of the Union were such a big deal.

The repeated claims from the administration came in scary imagery (a mushroom cloud), misleading intelligence (aluminum tubes), and known forgeries (Niger uranium.) The first is instructive because no factual claims were actually made, "We don't want the evidence to come in the form of a mushroom cloud" (my paraphrase.) That language was used to intentionally evoke a nightmare image without making a statement that needed to be verified - propaganda at its finest.

The aluminum tube claim was using a remote (if that) possibility that the tubes could be used to refine fissile material for nuclear weapons. The only problem was that the best intelligence we had disputed that claim. This is an example of cherry picking disputed intelligence claims and presenting them to the public as indisputable fact. Did an intelligence agency state that the tubes may be used for refining uranium? Yes. Was that claim disputed by another agency? Yes - and that agency happened to have expertise in nuclear energy, being part of the DOE. Again, I believe if we look at the statements, they are carefully crafted to be both factual and misleading. Only a careful and skeptical reading (or hearing) of the statements would leave any hint of doubt, though those making them surely knew that what they were saying was intended to mislead the public.

Claims of Niger uranium were disproved, or at least in significant question by Fall 2002. The CIA repeatedly fought attempts to insert the claim into presidential speeches, successfully getting it removed from an October 2002 speech, but failing in the State of the Union. It may sound like the onus was on the Agency, which is not my intention. The Agency relayed the facts, which hadn't changed between October and January. The administration conveniently forgot, was willfully ignorant or simply ignored the unpleasant truth - the Nigerian uranium angle was unreliable at best. Tenant and Hadley took the blame for the State of the Union, but this seems to me very much to have been a smoke screen given the factual history.

Finally, let's look at the Al-Qaida claim. This was once again a masterful work of propaganda, mixing factual statements, scary words (terrorists) and misleading claims. The factual statements were of the type similar to "Hussein supported terrorism because the Iraqi government gave money to families of suicide bombers." While this may perhaps technically be "supporting terrorism" it was supporting attacks on Israel in support of Palestinians. This is certainly abhorrent, but it was not in support of Islamic fundamentalism in general, nor of Al-Qaida in particular. Remember, Iraq was a secular country. Islam would (and is now) tear apart the country, especially given the Sunni minority in power at the time. Fundamentalism was a serious threat to Hussein and he therefore opposed it out of self-interest.

Combining the factual statements above with the word "terrorism" and then insinuating a tie with Al-Qaida was a deliberate attempt to draw a line the administration knew to be false. Any ties to the terrorist group were shaky at best, relying on a hospital stay of one mid-level operative and a non-existent meeting between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague. As noted above, Vice President Dick Cheney repeatedly made the second claim long after it was disavowed by every major intelligence agency including Czech intelligence. Again, the words can be parsed to be factually accurate, but totally misleading. Knowing that the meeting did not occur (or at least with 99.99% accuracy), Cheney continued to state that it was a possibility, although "he didn't know for certain." Juxtaposing the intelligence timeline with the statement timeline will show that these statements were knowingly false (or at least strongly in doubt), yet the administration continued to make their case.

The M&C Tie-in
This blog's focus tends to be on matters of faith. I devote one day a week, or so, to current events because I think it is important to view what's going on in the world through my Christian faith. This issue is particularly important because I believe that we are not only called to speak truth to power, but to expect truth FROM power. It is a dialogue, not a monologue. When matters of war are concerned, it is vital that we enter into such things with sober judgments and all the facts we can gather. If the government is to make a case for war, it must make it honestly and in good faith. The words must convince us on their merits and the reasons must be philosophically and morally sound (if that is ever possible for war.)

I am now implicated in the deaths of thousands of people. It was my government that went to war, it was my senators who voted for a war powers act it is my tax dollars that continue to pay for an immoral and illegal occupation. I don't claim that I was misled into supporting the war - I never did - but I am disappointed and outraged that my government would fail to live up to its stated ideals. The war continues to be a tragedy and a dividing point in this country and abroad. My hope is that we can all learn from it and expect more from my elected officials - and this is what I expect, "To do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8) It may be too much to expect justice, mercy and humility from our elected officials, but I continue to hold out hope.

Isaiah on Tuesday Friday - Promise for Jerusalem

1. Another quick hit - I'm playing catch-up here, but luckily we only have 4 verses to cover. Isaiah provides a beautiful picture of redemption for the remnant remaining in Jerusalem, "Those left...will be called holy." The city polluted by the idolatry, violence and sin of its inhabitants will be cleansed by a "spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire."

There isn't much for me to add to this section really - a promise of protection and shelter is made to these inhabitants. The Glory of the Lord will be present there providing guidance, direction and sanctuary:

"⁵ Then the LORD will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy. ⁶ It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain."

Isaiah's vision is a city restored, protected and covered by the Glory of God. In chapter 5, Isaiah returns to a vision of people who by all rights should be living under this canopy, but have chosen a different path.

A Father's Voice: Kill Your TV Part 2

This is just a mini-extension of part 1

A theme that has been coming up for me in church and with discussions about faith is how much faith is linked to intimacy. Intimacy with the Father leads to faith and faith leads with intimacy with the Father. Additionally, I believe we were created for intimacy with one another. Jesus even prays for it in John 17 - "May they be one as we are one."

So what struck me when thinking about part 1 is how succinctly intimacy summarizes my point. One of the key reasons I advocate pitching the TV is to build intimacy within the family: intimacy with your spouse and intimacy with your child(ren). It's not a sure-fire solution - there are many ways to avoid intimacy even without a television - but I think TV can be a barrier to building intimate relationships. The process of TV viewing is passive an non-interactive for the most part. While it can be a shared experience, it lacks the dynamic aspects of read-aloud or playing a game.

Killing the television isn't enough. It must also be replaced by something which builds initmate relationships with your children. Far from creating a void, I think it creates an opportunity.

Wednesday's Big Idea: Wisdom

This week was really an extension of last week. Same verses, same prayers (plus a progress check.) We can't really get enough of wisdom. There were definitely some positive answers to prayer, which is always good to hear.

I realized that since "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Proverbs 9), I should probably figure out what the fear of the Lord is. Deutoronomy offered me a pretty good primer, so I'll just quote that here and leave it at that. Seems that this is worth spending some time praying through:

¹² And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, ¹³ and to observe the LORD's commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good?

¹⁴ To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. ¹⁵ Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today. ¹⁶ Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. ¹⁷ For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. ¹⁸ He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. ¹⁹ And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt. ²⁰ Fear the LORD your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. ²¹ He is your praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes. ²² Your forefathers who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky.

Isaiah on Tuesday - No Post This Week

Stay tuned. I may get to something this week, we'll see. My weekends and evenings have been packed tight and work has been busy, busy, busy. I'm definitely behind on all my posting, but I haven't abandoned the blog - I just haven't had the time I need. There's so much to post and not enough time (or energy) in the day to get it all done.

I will have a Wednesday's Big Idea tomorrow and I may piggyback off of that. Next week will probably be light, but I have some time off, so maybe I'll actually get some extended posting in - who knows?

The next section for Isaiah is Isaiah 4:2-6 It's really a nice section and I want to do it justice. It's also the remainder of chapter 4. I think they goofed with the chapter division here. 4:1 belongs at the end of 3 and 2-6 seems to be an introduction into 5. Oh well, it is what it is.