November 08, 2004

Out of the Woodwork

It didn't take long for the Republicans to start taking off the friendly uncle masks they wore during the election. Common Dreams profiles Frank Gaffney and his latest screed [interjections in brackets]:

...When Perle became an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan he brought Gaffney along as his deputy. When Perle left in 1987, Gaffney succeeded him before setting up [the Center for Security Policy] CSP in 1989.

As Perle's long-time protégé and associate, Gaffney sits at the center of a network of interlocking think tanks, foundations, lobby groups, arms manufacturers and individuals that constitute the coalition of neo-conservatives, aggressive nationalists like Cheney and Rumsfeld and Christian Right activists responsible for the unilateralist trajectory of U.S. foreign policy since 9/11.

Included among CSP's board of advisers over the years have been Rumsfeld, Perle, Feith, Christian moralist William Bennett, Abrams, Feith, Joseph, former United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, former Navy Undersecretary John Lehman and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director James Woolsey.

Woolsey also co-chairs the new Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), another prominent neo-con-led lobby group that argues Washington is now engaged in ''World War IV'' against ''Islamo-fascism.'' ... [Me: Hmm. The CPD, isn't that the group that Joe Lieberman jumped into with both feet? Do we need anymore proof that the man is little more than a pro-choice neo-con?]

...His article opens by trying to pre-empt an argument that is already being heard on the right against expanding Bush's ''war on terrorism'': that since a plurality of Bush voters identified ''moral values'' as their chief concern, the president should stick to his social conservative agenda rather than expand the war.

''The reality is that the same moral principles that underpinned the Bush appeal on 'values' issues like gay marriage, stem-cell research and the right to life were central to his vision of U.S. war aims and foreign policy,'' according to Gaffney. ...

The right to life. What a curious value to use to support an ever widening circle of war, conflict, feuding, pandemonium, and general anarchy.

Here's Gaffney's article in its full glory, and here are the highlights of his plan, emphasis mine:

...[1] The reduction in detail of Fallujah and other safe havens utilized by freedom's enemies in Iraq ...[2] Regime change — one way or another — in Iran and North Korea ...[3] Providing the substantially increased resources needed to re-equip a transforming military and rebuild human-intelligence capabilities (minus, if at all possible, the sorts of intelligence "reforms" contemplated pre-election...) ...[4] protection of our homeland ...by deploying effective missile defenses at sea and in space, as well as ashore ...[5] Keeping faith with Israel, whose destruction remains a priority for the same people who want to destroy us (and for the same reasons — i.e., our shared, "moral values") ...[6] Contending with the underlying dynamic that made France and Germany so problematic in the first term ...[7] [C]contending with China's increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, Vladimir Putin's accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism, and the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America.

These items do not represent some sort of neocon "imperialist" game plan. Rather, they constitute a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.

None of these priorities will be easy or painless. All will require of President Bush a readiness to incur political costs and to assume risks far in excess of those his handlers were comfortable running before the election. ...

I can hear the world clamoring for this to be done even now. Yes, certainly a majority of the world citizenry who either thought that a) no change in US president could possibly make their lives any better, or b) that last Tuesday's results were an unmitigated catastrophe, just can't wait to see the neocon grand dream spread 'freedom fighting' to still more parts of the world. I'm surprised the NGOs and nations of the world didn't come up with this plan themselves, march it into the UN, and demand that the US enact it with all speed.

Oh yeah, I forgot. When neocons talk about 'the world', they mean their friends.

Gaffney would essentially have the US pick fights with at least one country in every populated region of the world save Africa. He reduces the Israeli-Palestinian issue to one of moral values, a frame under which no conclusion could be reached. He thinks we can 'fix' Russia and China just like that. He wants to cut Germany and France out of any possible means of interference with the grand design, because they're just terrorist allies anyway.

Here at home, he wants to jettison the intelligence reforms suggested by the 9-11 commission, and to push costly missile defense programs that don't yet work against missiles and will never work against terrorism of the type we saw on 9-11. And he seems to be under the impression that because so much of 'the world' is behind these policies, he can talk about difficulties in terms of domestic political reaction.

Finally, what the hell does "reduction in detail" mean? That sounds like a bloodless way of saying that no living thing is safe within a 10 mile radius of wherever it's happening.

Anyone feel safer yet?

Posted by natasha at November 8, 2004 02:44 PM | International | Technorati links |
Comments