Dick Cheney Interview

Here's the article they're talking about in Vanity Fair. Excerpts:

I remember sitting with Richard Perle in his suite at London's Grosvenor House hotel and receiving a private lecture on the importance of securing victory in Iraq. "Iraq is a very good candidate for democratic reform," he said. "It won't be Westminster overnight, but the great democracies of the world didn't achieve the full, rich structure of democratic governance overnight. The Iraqis have a decent chance of succeeding." Perle seemed to exude the scent of liberation, as well as a whiff of gunpowder. It was February 2003, and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the culmination of his long campaign on behalf of regime change in Iraq, was less than a month away.

Three years later, Perle and I meet again at his home outside Washington, D.C. It is October, the worst month for U.S. casualties in Iraq in almost two years, and Republicans are bracing for losses in the upcoming midterm elections. As he looks into my eyes, speaking slowly and with obvious deliberation, Perle is unrecognizable as the confident hawk who, as chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, had invited the exiled Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi to its first meeting after 9/11. "The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."

According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."

Perle goes so far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not have advocated an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists."

Damn. Richard Perle pretty much throws BushCo. under the bus. And just three days before an election! Surely Mr. Perle is an isolated incident. The neocons as a group, as a movement haven't actually abandoned George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have they?

Yep. They have. Here's my summary:

David Frum, ex-Presidential Speech Writer who wrote the "Axis of Evil" speech, says that defeat is inevitable because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." He blames Bush.

Kenneth Adelman, Pentagon insider and Defense Policy Board member said this: "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

Adelman goes so far to say that the tennets of Neoconservatism, "the idea of a tough foreign policy on behalf of morality, the idea of using our power for moral good in the world" will be radioactive for at least a generation. After Iraq, nobody's going to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

David Rose, the author of the Vanity Fair article, tells us that his full findings on the state of the Neoconservative movement will be published in the January issue of VF. This is a bit silly. If the editors at VF had any sense, they'd have had Rose one this story earlier so that it would have mad it into the November issue instead of just giving us a teaser.

But then again, after watching Cheney and George Stephanopoulos, maybe the teaser was enough.

I leave you with the quote that spoke most clearly to me about the absolute ruination that this administration has brought in Iraq.

David Frum: "I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything."

Dick Cheney George W. Bush Neocons Failure War in Iraq

The Fall of the American Hegemony

Sebastian Mallaby's op-ed in the Washington Post comes to a conclusion I reached around February of 2002:

I'm not predicting the end of the American era, not by a long shot. The U.S. business culture is as pragmatic and effective as its political culture is dysfunctional. But has there been a worse moment for American power since Ronald Reagan celebrated morning in America almost a quarter of a century ago? I can't think of one.

Mr. Mallaby reaches this conclusion after examining America's failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Darfur. He considers Americas domestic problems as well. Rampant military spending, social security and an ageing population, the costs of pollution, the pressures of globalization and the growing divide between the rich and poor are expressions of the pressures that bring down empires. All that and Mr. Mallaby can't predict the end of the American Era.

I am predicting the end of the American era.

All empires fall. The greatest empires the world has ever known - the Babylonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Aztecs, the Incas, the Spanish, the British, the Ottoman Empire and most recently the Soviet Empire - all of them are gone. The American Empire will be no different.

The fall of the American Empire does not mean 'Mad Max' come to life or the sacking of Washington. As a colonial empire, our decline will look much like that of the British Empire.

Though that slow decline is inevitable, it has been hastened by President Bush. Since the end of the cold war, the United States lacked what every great 'force for good' (I don't want to use the word hero) needs - an opponent recognized by the wider community of nations as harmful. Without that opponent, super-powers must be careful to avoid breeding resentment among less powerful nations.

Obviously, George Bush has done quite the opposite.

This isn't to say that America's decline had to start here. The terror attacks on 9/11 provided not just an 'enemy' for America, but also a great deal of good will for America around the globe. This was an opportunity for America to rededicate itself to providing leadership in the world - to work towards greater freedom, liberty and openness around the world.

Instead, George W. Bush used to opportunity to settle old grudges and consolidate domestic political power. Harsh rhetoric and harsh policies alienated not just new American allies, gained in the aftermath of 9/11, but America's traditional allies as well.

There are multiple reasons why Bush and his Neocon backers so seriously misplayed their hand. First was an inability to realize and utilize what has been America's greatest strength for the last 50 years - the soft power of Americanism. Over the past half century, even in nations where the political establishment was anti-American, the populations were largely pro-American. The spread of rock and roll, Levis, McDonald's and Coca-Cola were the concrete expression of the perceived superiority of American ideals.

The reason for the rejection of 'soft power' by the Neocons is that it did not fit with the hyper-nationalistic attitude of the movement.

Though there had always been nations which rejected Americanism, the number and vehemence of these rejections has grown as a reaction to both American involvement in Iraq and to the increasingly harsh measures used in George W. Bush's 'Global War on Terrorism.'

This direct rejection, primarily among nations with large Muslim populations, is compounded by the growing unpopularity of American policy among the populations of Europe. Formerly pro-American Western Nations don't feel the need for an interventionalist America after the threat of Soviet invasion disappeared. The E.U., for all its hitches and problems, also decreases European economic dependence on the Dollar and the United States. The E.U.'s gross domestic product is actually the largest in the world - higher than America's.

Add this to the fact that a rising China and an emerging India are anxious to secure resources for their growing economies and willing to deal with nations outside American interests.

This recipe for decreased international influence is only increased by the Neocon's distaste for the United Nations. A symptom of the Neoconservative tenet of unilateral action, America has lost influence in the only legislative body that includes all the nations of the world - an institution built by America.

* * * * *
Even if the Democrats were to sweep into both the House and the Senate in two weeks, spend 2 years dismantling the system the Bush Administration has set up, then holds both Houses of Congress and gains the Presidency, the decline could only at best be slowed.

An entire generation in the Middle East is radicalized. The number of Europeans who remember American GIs coming to liberate them is dwindling. The time since America protected Europe from the Soviet Threat is growing. India and China aren't going to stop their climb towards being world powers because there's a Democratic President in the United States.

The best possible thing for America is for our politicians to plan for a soft landing. I'm not advocating that America give up on influencing events around the world, though I am concerned that as our influence wanes, we will succumb to the same miscalculation that has ended so many empires - diverting so many resources into maintaining influence that our way of life becomes unsustainable.

Of course acknowledging that America won't be the world's only super-power forever is a politically unpopular position.

I'd say the outlook for the American Era is bleak.

American Empire American Era Sebastian Mallaby American Influence

The 'Axis of Evil' Problem

The problem with identifying an 'Axis of Evil' that must be confronted is that, well, people start keeping score.

Axis of Evil:

• Iran - Rising Regional Hegemon with a Nuclear Weapons Program. Untouchable due to Iran's agreements with China and Russia plus economic risks of Oil Embargo. Outlook: A nation that has publicly funded rallies where 'Death to America, Death to Israel' is chanted by thousands of people will soon have the bomb and there's nothing we can do about it. Score: +1
  

• North Korea - Newest member of the Nuclear Nations club. Defied world opinion and detonated a nuclear weapon in an underground test despite best efforts of U.S. at six way talks. Has long range missiles. Makes neighbors (China, South Korea, Japan) REALLY nervous. Outlook: Sanctions would do no good because the leadership doesn't care if millions die and illicit arms trade brings in millions. Score: +2
  

• Iraq - The disastrous War in Iraq is what makes confronting the other two members of the Axis of Evil nearly impossible. Shiite Militias, Insurgents, Sunnis, Kurds... all tying down the majority of American Military power at a time when it might be best used elsewhere. Outlook: The Civil War nobody's talking about. Score: 0
  

• Afghanistan (Honorary Member) - Slowly drifting back towards chaos. Central government in Kabul not able to prevent terrorist activities in outlying areas. NATO facing stiff resistance in areas already 'controlled.' Outlook: At the tipping point. As likely to be terrorist haven as democracy in 24 months. Score: +0.5
  

USA / Free World / Other

• U.S.A. - Military power stretched to breaking. Unable to threaten meaningful military against Iran or North Korea. Strongly disliked by both foreign governments and foreign populations. Facing political upheaval at home. Outlook: Well, that's the question, isn't it? Score: -2
  

• Coalition of the Willing - Slowly dwindling. 2006 saw the withdrawal of Canadian, Italian, and Japanese troops. 2005 saw the withdrawal of Portuguese, Dutch, Ukrainian and Bulgarian forces. Outlook: At this point only the UK, Poland, Australia, Romania, and Denmark, have over 500 troops on the ground. Score: -1
  

• Other - Hugo Chavez thinks we're the devil. Everybody else just thinks we're imperialistic, war mongering hypocrites talking about freedom and democracy while torturing prisoners, bringing war and death to millions around the world, to busy ignoring the U.N. and the world community to realize that we've squandered our standing in the world. Outlook: We will never be as respected as we were before George W. Bush became President. Score: -1
  

Damn. That's pretty one-sided. And the GOP wants to run on National Security? I guess having the media in your pocket helps.

For all the reports in the MSM about how GOoPers are screaming about how terrible it would be to have Democrats running our Foreign Policy, I'd like to see one, just one examination of where six years of Republican Foreign Policy has gotten us.

Iran Iraq North Korea Axis of Evil Republican Foreign Policy Media