pep talk time
While loathe to kick anyone (even politicians) when they are down, some individuals richly deserve a good kicking. The International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS, www.iiss.org) fashions itself as “the world’s leading authority on political-military conflict”. This past week, delegates from 20 countries convened in Singapore to discuss geo-political issues related to this cenutry’s catch-word – “terrorism”.
One of the highlights of the symposium was a speech by the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld. Rapidly approaching “Comical Ali” status, Rumsfield’s speech contained a quite startling warning:
The new challenges include not only terrorism, but the danger of the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We know that extremists are seeking still more powerful means to inflict damage on even greater numbers of innocent men, women, and children.
As if “terrorism” is not enough, then, equally dangerous is the “nexus” between terrorism and “weapons of mass destruction”. Haven’t we heard this before?
Just two days earlier, on the 3rd of June, the Director of the CIA, George Tenet had tendered his resignation, “a personal decision” which “had only one basis in fact – the well being of my wonderful family. Nothing more and nothing less” (read his entire statement here). In truth, however, Tenet’s departure was percipitated by a damming report on the Agency undertaken by the Senate Intelligence Committee; this internal audit is anticipated to point serious shortcomings in basic intelligence-gathering, intelligence-analysis and intelligence-intelligence.
Aside from an intelligence deficit, however, there was a glaring, fundamental flaw: what took place during Tenet’s watch was the politicization of intelligence, in the broadest sense of the term. Out of thin air, and thinner evidence, Tenet proclaimed that the evidence for Iraq’s WMD capabilty was indisputable: “It’s a slam-dunk case!” According to The Guardian’s leader:
In the kindest view, expressed by his friend and former Council on Foreign Relations president Leslie Gelb, Mr Tenet did not actually invent the evidence but “when asked, would put a face on it that was consistent with the administration”.
Such is the fall-out from the Gulf War (II) and the absence of WMD, we are privileged to read the under-statement of 2004 (courtesy of Kenneth M. Pollack’s article):
“Fairly or not, no foreigner trusts U.S. intelligence to get it right anymore, or trusts the Bush Administration to tell the truth”.
18 months after the premiere of “Bush vs Sadamm: the sequel”, there has been not a single trace of any weapon of “mass” destruction, chemical, nuclear or conventional. Yet Rumsfeld is still stoking the embers of “weapons of mass destruction”.
It is too easy to adopt a sceptical view: If you repeat a lie often enough, convincingly enough, the whole world will soon believe. It is also an irrelevance to point to the absence of WMD and accuse the US of deceit and collusion; liberals who adopt this position have fallen for the WMD agenda. More importantly, such a sceptical position detracts and distracts from the worrying truth behind the lie.
One of the consequences of the post 9-11 world has been the re-alignment of American foreign policy. The expansionist bent of the US has taken place almost imperceptibly under the guise of the “war on terror”. In this sense, the real “winners” of 9-11 has been the US industrial-military complex.
The message is unmistakable: no area of the world is immune from extremists’ attacks. A terrorist needs only to be lucky once; civil society needs to be prepared always. Terrorists can attack at any time, in any place, using any technique.
In plain language, this is to be understood as – for your protection, allow US military presence within your territorial borders. That is precisely how one should understand Rumsfeld’s closing sentence:
In these perilous times, the United States is privileged to have such close bonds with so many courageous and steadfast friends.
