BUSH's DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION: EVERYWHERE BUT AMERICA!

A Rejoinder to Joe Clark


In the unintentionally hysterical title “Bush’s Democratic Revolution,” of his last offering in the paper “The Cornell American,” which itself bears a name that could be considered an oxymoron, Joe Clark, generally pragmatic and well meaning conservative draws careful comparisons between the Marxist revolutions of yesteryear, and the new found conservative enthusiasm for a foreign policy of intervention into failed Arab states with the hopes of “facilitating liberal democracy.”. (Like after 9/11 when we demanded Saudi Arabia stop funding terrorism and started treating women equally-oh wait-my mistake!.)
Clark begins the article “Critiqued from the Scowcroft-Kissinger model, our current foreign policy towards the Arab world seems a great break from the former aim of stability.” He then applauds the “new framework for engaging with despotic regimes such as Iraq, Syria, and Iran.” It is interesting that Saudi Arabia: the country that was home to the majority of hijackers that carried out 9/11, not to mention arguably the ideological “Mecca” of the Islamic extremist movement, and last but not least: financially in bed with the policy makers of the country leading the democracy project is not mentioned ONCE in the entire screed! The Saudis have clearly been omitted from the list of hostile countries based on the fact that some of its more progressive leaders wear Armani suits.
Clark notes an “alliance” between former radical leftist intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens and David Horrowitz and “Texan” conservative President Bush (?) (Only in the Ivy League would someone refuse to mention Saudi Arabia once in an article about the need for democratic change in the Arab world and then treat “Texas” as if it were its own country.) on the subject of democratizing the Arab world. Saying the reason for this alliance is “clear…though not in front of ones nose.” Although it is unclear the exact point a bra burning radical becomes a Neo Conservative-one can understand this “strange marriage,” as Clark calls it, by appreciating the “inner yearning among leftist intellectuals to change what institutions and cultures they see as oppressive and unjust.”
Yea, okay, but here’s the thing. Several countries in the Arab world have cultures that would be considered oppressive and worse. So how does one pick and choose which backwards, murderous regimes to overthrow and which to support while retaining credibility. Clark really believes that intention trumps all. In his world the U.S. can go on a wild eyed democratic conversion of the Middle East fueled only by theory while in practice destroying its own credibility with things like Abu Graib, Gitmo, and routine torture of prisoners. This is the equivalent of a cop speeding. The fact that Saddam Hussein was sitting on the world’s third largest reserve of energy was obviously a non issue because the “gathering” threat of his phantom nukes was so dangerous it dwarfed all other economic considerations. Saudi Arabia, which contributes to the culture of terrorism more than Iraq did, by any stretch of the imagination, has had little pressure in any real sense to change their ways. Arabs, like many Americans, can sense an inconsistency in the U.S. policy and therefore have trouble jumping on the bandwagon.

As a result I would like to change Clarks first sentence, which he does word beautifully, to reflect what I feel is an accurate sentiment among of governing elite. “A new framework for engaging despotic regimes (that have either strategic importance in the region for future engagements or a hell of a lot of oil) and “facilitating liberal democracy” (by torture, secrecy, and basically any undemocratic means necessary) to create a Jeffersonian democracy in the heart of a cauldron of religious totalitarianism- unless of course the despotic regime happens to be our best friend. And for producing more of the men that carried out 9/11 than any other nation, what else Saudi Arabia could deserve but than a slap on the wrist-unless of course the Saudis had cut that wrist off in a public forum-something our best friend is known to do. That old adage: show me your friends and ill show you who you are rings true even in realpolitik.

THE CIA-From WWII to Good Will Hunting

I used one of my Christmas presents, a Regal gift card, which is a good gift for someone who you fear would use the physical money to purchase drugs, to see the film "The Good shepherd"; an exploration of the birth of the CIA, with Matt Damon, Robert DeNiro and a woman whose name should be Angelina Jolie-Dillon. The movie, which is long and bloated but intrinsically entertaining due to solid performances and an occasionally witty and thought provoking screenplay, tells the elaborate and secretive story of the birth of Americas intelligence community during WWII. From the OSS to the CIA, the 30's to the 50's, Stalin to Castro, Yale to Washington; the story is a tale of transition within families and governments. The need to develop an overseas intelligence agency came about shorty before our introduction into WWII. The agency, called the Office for Special Services, was comprised of hand picked "loyal and patriotic" Americans from the institutions of Americas ruling class, primarily the elite Skull and Bones society. Damons character is "tapped" for Bones while at Yale and approached about joining the O.S.S. by DeNiro's character at Deer Island, a longime Skull and Bones retreat. He impregnates Jolie and its practically forced to marry her. She is the sister of another bonesman. It's like a Mafia wedding without antipasto. In true "Godfather" style Damon is mysteriously called away at the wedding to leave for an overseas trip of indeterminate length and leaves Jolie to mind the house and raise baby bones. During this time he is introduced to the world of "intelligence, counter intelligence, disinformation" and how to utilize them. He sees an old English teacher who "knew too much" get "dealt with" and that hardens the young idealist. He is thrust into a "dirty" but essential business where no one can be trusted. Informants have to be tortured. Defectors provide disinformation. None of the female double agents are fucking you for you. All the while baby bones is having his 3rd birthday back in America, which Damon must miss. After WWII, Russia begins to get cute. They spread the ideology of communism throughout Eastern Europe without adversity and courted Cuba, the little island close enough to throw an egg at Miami-or a missile. The disastrous "bay of pigs" debacle is laboriously detailed. Kennedy promised air cover for Cuban rebels aided by the CIA, and double crossed them. The rebels were slaughtered. Castro remained in power. The Soviets were emboldened. This event is seen as the precursor to the Cuban missile crisis. In fairness to Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and demerol are definitely more enjoyable than the successful prosecution of covert military operations. I will one day write a history of Democratic party pastimes entitled "From Monroe To Lewinsky: the Declining Quality of Women Democrats Refuse to Admit Association with." The CIA is born from the OSS because an agency is needed to do in peacetime what the OSS did in wartime. Russia is grabbing land, infiltrating governments, and trying to acquire the bomb. In the imminent need to counterbalance the Soviet trend the CIA is set up with some key players from the previous agency that haven't been deemed "loyalty risks." "Loyalty risks" are apparently dealt with by the CIA the same way O.J. handles his spurts of anger-without a book deal from Judith Reagan. The CIA is literally above the law inasmuch as it doesn't have to follow any laws. It is managed with civilian oversight from Congress to prevent a consolidation of power within the old white hands of a few. Other than that, the clandestine covert nature of the organization is virtually impenetrable, and for good reason: if we had any idea what these people were doing we'd cut their funding. And Obviously national security. All the while, baby bones has fittingly lived up to his legacy as a bonesman and decided to join the CIA to please poppa bones. Mama bones is unhappy, unfulfilled, and lonely. She goes to live with her mother. Having a family pizza place is manifestly easier than having a family spy ring, however when in Rome. The family drama is played up as baby bones begins to boink an African working for the Russians. However as he explains to his father "he loves her." Two people from different backgrounds is a difficult obstacle in any relationship. I believe it is even harder to overcome the cold war. So Damon's character did what any father who wasn't supportive of the union would do: warned his son that this wasn't a good move, and then promptly had the Russians throw the girl out of a plane. Romeo and Juliet meets 007. The movie ends where it began with the showing a new class of bonesmen ready to fill the shoes of their fathers. There is a permanence to these institutions built on unwavering faith and an extreme feeling of purpose among their members. Not all Skull and bones members become CIA agents. John Kerry for example became a blowhard. President Bush, whose reportedly not at all interested in the club since becoming a member, owned a baseball team. There are few exceptions to success though. Skulls are generally successful-like Asians at math-it's just what they do. Non conformists and people who supposedly read between the lines constantly blather about a unified one world government made up of the Skull and Bones, Tri lateral commission, the Bildeberg group, the Masons, and certain sects of Mathletes, who manufacture history by designing events and the rationale for them- like when they met with God to whip up Hurricane Katrina. Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and 9/11 have all come under scrutiny by the "read between the lines" crowd as monumental events that were composed by a shadow government to alter the nations course. In that analysis the Japanese imperialists and Al Qaida get off pretty easy. I find it all pretty unbelievable for two reasons: Bill Maher doesn't even believe it and I'm not on the drugs I used to be. The conspiracy crowd is short on logic, a lot of them are dirty, but the drugs are good! At the end of the day, the movie is worth seeing. The CIA is not a career for someone who wants to coach little league. Skull and bones has the resources to dress the tomb up a little: earth Tones, less ornate cold Masonic stuff, perhaps an omelet station manned by the less capable bonesmen who aren't fit for the intelligence community. I'm brimming with ideas and open to anything should anyone want to tap me. More importantly, as elite, secretive, and powerful as these institutions are; perhaps the event that most altered the course of the world was made by a carpenter whose family was to poor to afford a room at the inn. Now that's a legacy. Makes you think.