ALERT
The Bush White House uses this phrase to control debate about foreign policy and national security :
weapons of mass destruction
This phrase has been in use a long time, but Cons have used it prominently in their foreign policy language since the late 1990s.
Do not accept the terms of this debate. Progressives can take control of the Iraq debate by changing the language being used.
By using these points Progressives can talk in positive terms about their view of Iraq and foreign policy:
Progressives believe:
- America leads by example
- Responsibility is the moral core of a strong military
- Respect is the foundation of an effective foreign policy
Frameshop is
open.
The Threat of Uncertainty
All weapons are dangerous and should not be taken lightly, ever.
But we must still talk about foreign policy and how it contributes to a culture of fear--how it controls debate.
Where does one look for the source of ideas as powerful as the current Bush war in Iraq?
A recent episode of Frontline made the argument that the War in Iraq was an outgrowth of a policy initiative that could be traced back to 1991. The key players in that initiative are the Neo-Con foreign policy hawks associated with the Project for the New American Century.
Bil Moyers' chronologies can be helpful, and I encourage everyone to go to that Frontline page to get to know the basic Neo-Con strategic iniatives that led to the current war in Iraq.
But to understand how "---" is the keypiece that holds in place an entire worldview, there is just no substitute for examing the actual words of the Neo-Cons themselves.
Three years before September 11, a group of Con politicians and foreign policy experts sent a letter to President Clinton regarding the US Iraq policy. Let's take a look at this entire letter, looking up occasionally to consider how it articulates a broad logic about the country and the world:
[To make sure I have the "right" version, my copy is taken from the Project for the New American Century, a think tank created by the very people who signed the letter. -JF]
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
Notice what is in this opening paragraph and what is not.
The big change called for is a radical revision of the "failed" policy in Iraq, and the "threat" is more serious than anything since the Cold War. The key to dealing with this threat is to remove Saddam Husein. Iraq, in other words, is the center piece in a massive Neo-Con foreign policy vision. They saw the world differently than Clinton.
The word "terror" or "terrorism" is not mentioned in this paragraph or anywhere in the letter. Let's continue:
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction , therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
The emphasis is mine,here. Notice how the Neo-Cons first draw attention to the Progressive frame of Iraq, the idea of containing Saddam Hussein through sanctions and UN observers. The danger, according to the Neo-Cons is clear: Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. But it's not just a danger of weapons that concerns them, it's the looming danger of "soon" being unable to determine if there is a looming danger being kept secret.
Containment is a failed policy not because it leads directly to a dangerous Iraq, but because it leads to a US foreign policy that is unable to determine if Iraq is dangerous or not. "Uncertaintly" is the real danger in the Middle East, and in a dangerous world, the real danger lurking behind uncertainty is the threat of global destruction:
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Here we have the second reference to weapons, but this time it is linked to consequences for our troops, allies, and commercial interests (aka: oil). And now the weapons phrase is starting to sound like a drumbeat. It's the real threat out there--or rather, it's the real threat that is threatening to emerge such that it threatens the region and the world:
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
Third mention of the key phrase.
In a threatening world, the only way to avoid the danger of uncertainty is to act first to eliminate it. Unwillingness to act first heightens the threat of weapons that may be used against us. We are alone. And by not invading Iraq, according to the letter, President Clinton put this country in great danger:
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Fourth and most decise mention of the problem phrase. To not invade Iraq is to ignore the threat of the US being destroyed. To not invade Iraq is to welcome the destruction of the future.
Now...after I read this letter, I always need to get up and walk around for a minute, splash some water on my face, shake it off. I take a minute to admire the sheer audacity of this approach. Then I sit back down.
Before 9/11, before the "war on terror," before swiftboat vets, before all of it--the Neo-Cons saw the invasion of Iraq as the key to America's future.
The real danger that they saw was that Iraq could become a part of the world that was beyond the purview of the US--that was beyond our ability to determine if there was a threat. And what is best way to drive home the danger of that uncertaintly? To talk about the most horrible of horrors to the American public.
For the Neo-Cons, invading Iraq initially was to guard against the emergence of a rival power that could hide secrets and emerge as a threat. But more than that--it was intended to send a signal to what the Neo-Cons saw as the real rival threat in the world: Asia. The threat in Asia is so great, though, that it requires its own strategic initiative in the form of a science fiction fantasy where every nuclear bomb will meet its maker at the hands of super intelligent nuclear bomb destroying missiles that protect the country in a dome of high tech safety.
[note: Start Wars is such a huge topic, it will be covered in its own Frameshop session.--JF]
Remember What Progressives Believe: Peace
OK, so what do Progressives believe?
Do Progressives not believe that chemical and biological weapons are dangerous?
Do Progressives not believe that murderous dictators should be deposed?
Do Progressives not believe that uncertainty is dangerous?
Of course Progressives believe those things. The real question is: How do we differ in our broad worldview?
Let's take a minute to reconnect with our fundamental values.
Progressives believe in peace.
Progressives believe that strength comes through strong alliances built on respect.
Weapons capable of killing many people at once are the greatest danger in the world because their existence carries with it the risk of mass death of all kinds, and at the very worst, the potential for another nuclear holocaust.
Americans have the responsibility to be worldleaders in preventing another nuclear holocaust because--for better or for worse--it was the American military that perpetrated the world's first and only nuclear holocaust.
One of the key historical lesson of the nuclear holocaust was that the radical isolation of any nation can lead to catastrophic destruction.
The goal of foreign policy is peace.
The best strategy for maintaining peace is nuclear arms reduction and international relations through respect, not an increased nuclear arms race and military domination through force.
When respect fails in one location, the community of nations works together to deal with it patiently, efficiently and, when necessary, with decisive force.
Nuclear Holocaust
All Progressives sense that the key issue dominating the Bush agenda is the war in Iraq. As much as it is a diplomatic and military fiasco, it has been undeniabley successful as an issue that dominates political debate. It doesn't just dominate what people talk about, it dictates a broad Conservative logic about the world.
Dislodging it and replacing it with a Progressive alternative is not going to be easy.
To begin, let's stop using the phrase "w--- -- --- ---n." Instead, let's reconnect with the language of peace, nuclear arms reduction, and respect for other nations.
We need to get back to talking about the dangers of nuclear holocaust brought on by the nuclear arms race.
Once we do that, we will be ready to talk about fascist movements that combined religious hatred, technology, and money to kill Americans with horrifying success.
Let's get started...
Update [2004-12-27 15:16:19 by Jeffrey Feldman]:
See Paul Rosenberg's point below about the problem and danger of collapsing the meaning of "---" down to mean only nuclear weapons. In the first draft of this diary, I used the phrase "nuclear weapons" to explain what the Neo-Cons were discussing in the letter to Clinton. In fact, they were discussing only chemical and biological weapons. One of the accomplishments of the Neo-Con military debate has in fact been the complete reduction of this phrase down to nuclear weapons. Thus, terrorism, "---" and various rogue states become linked in a sort-of Neo-Con rogue trifecta. To have one two implies having the third, etc.. It's worth taking a minute to read Moeller's essay, and to understand the way the media--and also Frameshop--can have difficulty at first getting out of this Neo-Con language trap once it has been set.