Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

How About A 'Peace Czar' Instead?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

"Power, I said. Power to walk into the gold vaults of the nations, into the secrets of kings, into the holy of holies. Power to make multitudes run squealing in terror at the touch of my little invisible finger. Even the moon's frightened of me. Frightened to death. The whole world's frightened to death." --Sherriff


It should come as no surprise that the Bush regime is looking for someone to take charge of their dual occupations in the Mideast. The search for a 'war czar' by the Bush White House is, at first blush, a reflection of the indifference and disinterest of the nation's top Executive in assuming any of the responsibility for his bloody overthrows and occupations. But it's actually just another grab for power by this increasingly autocratic administration.

The story is that Bush is looking for a manager to coordinate "policy" from the White House to the Pentagon and the State Department. Right now, that's the job of the National Security Council. Bush is the chairman of the Council. It's other members are Cheney, Condi, Gates, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence also participate in filtering policy down from the Executive.

When first asked Wednesday about where the idea came from to hire someone of a "higher caliber/profile" to manage the Bush wars, WH spokeswoman, Dana Perino, had no explanation: "I'm not sure exactly where it came from," Perino told reporters, "because I think that there have been -- as we've talked with people outside of the administration, both in civilian life and in the military, have considered this to be an option that we might want to pursue. I don't know where it generated initially for the original idea, but it's one that we are considering. And we're weighing the options to see about whether or not we would explore restructuring the office to make sure it is working well to implement the policies that we have for this administration," she said.

The new "czar" would serve as an amplified echo of the same, discredited Bush policy which has our troops bogged down in Iraq and faltering in Afghanistan. Whoever assumes the new position would report directly to Bush and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, giving the NSA (and the new 'czar') as much visible influence as the commander-in-chief in matters of foreign policy and national security.

Moreover, the blurring of the direction of our nation's civilian diplomatic institution with the mechanizations of the war department is a continuation of the decline of the State Dept. into a mere PR tool for whatever militarism the White House and the Pentagon promote; which began with Bush's appointment of Colin Powell as our nation's top diplomat - the general who's army's killing of Iraqi innocents is rivaled in this century only by the enemy he sought to capture - and is perpetuated by his deputy, Rice, who has waged her own "ideological struggle" behind the sacrifices of our nation's defenders.


Rice's former deputy sidekick, Hadley, who would assume the position of dominance over the new "war czar", has been advocating policies for many years which have, to no one's surprise, found their way into the ideological bulldozer which forms the doctrine of the Bush league's foreign policy. Hadley worked closely with the Bush-Cheney campaign as a foreign policy adviser specializing in European and Russian affairs. He was a partner in Shea & Gardner, the Washington law firm representing Lockheed Martin. He was a member of the Vulcans, an eight-person foreign policy team formed during the Bush campaign that included Condoleezza Rice and Richard Perle.

Hadley is also the fluky bungler who took the blame for the insertion of the phony Iraq/Niger uranium charges in the president's State of the Union address, claiming that he 'forgot' to relay CIA objections. As early as 2002, Hadley and Rice were engaged in a series of briefings with foreign policy groups, Iraq specialists and other opinion makers that was termed as a "new phase," by a White House spokesman, who described the goal as building fresh public support for Bush administration policy vs. Iraq. Before the invasion and occupation, Hadley spoke to the Council on Foreign Relations in February 2003 about the Future of Iraq project. "If war comes," Hadley said, "it will be a war of liberation, not occupation."

It just makes sense in this duplicitous administration that Bush would look to Hadley to help contain any weakening of their circle of influence around our military and government offices that they've used to perpetuate whatever militarism and extra-constitutional grabs for power they've advantaged themselves with since the attacks on 9-11. The lame-duck commander is also bound to be seeking a way to put the hat on someone else for his failed military aggressions as his presidency fades into the sunset.

"It's something I would like to have done yesterday and if yesterday wasn't available, the day before," Hadley told reporters during a White House briefing.

But, this is really an initiative by the warmongers who've infected this administration to dominate of almost every aspect of our government to further their paranoid, opportunistic, self-appointment as protectors of the imperialism they've convinced themselves represents their advance of democracy abroad.

Defense Secretary Gates, when asked about the new "czar," expressed surprise over the controversy: "I frankly am kind of amused by the level of excitement over this," he told reporters in a Pentagon briefing Wednesday. "Both Republicans and Democrats for some time have been urging that there be somebody in the White House who could act as a coordinator for the civilian side of the government along with the Defense Department," he said.

Gates wanted the press to know that the goal was to get everyone in the government on board with the myopic insistence of Bush and his cabal to keep our nation's defenders bogged down, fighting and dying for their new Iraqi puppet regime. Dissent among the agents of their imperialism means death to their agenda as realism surfaces over their ideology and ambition.

"You know," Gates said, "one of the arguments that we hear frequently -- and frankly are very sympathetic with -- is that we and the State Department are about the only parts of the government that are at war. This kind of position is intended to ensure that where other parts of the government can play a contributing role, that in fact they understand what the president's priorities are and make sure that the commanders in the field, the ambassador in the field gets what he needs," he insisted.

What we need, however, is a position in Bush's administration which is tasked with helping the White House and their minions understand the priorities of the American people that he end the occupation of Iraq and bring our soldiers home. Instead of deepening our nation's involvement in Bush's manufactured militarism, and elevating the influence of it's architects, the administration needs to begin dismantling the machinery that's perpetuated their Iraq folly.

How about promoting a peace "czar," instead?

 

Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

John McCain Stands With Bigots and Racists

Further Down That Bloody Path In Iraq

Calling the Bluff on the Limits of American Power and Influence

What's Really Going On In Space?

Allowing China a Dominant Role in Afghanistan's Future

Bush's Enduring Militarism in Iraq

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=15... by Blue Pilgrim on Friday, Apr 13, 2007 at 1:33:02 PM