US Politics: Delusional Incompetence

 

US Politics: Delusional Incompetence

Peter Schultz

 

                  The following is from David Halberstam’s book The Best and the Brightest, wherein it is clear that the best and the brightest Americans failed in Vietnam.

 

“As in China, it was a modern army against a feudal one, though it was not perceived by Western eyes, particularly Western military eyes, which saw the ARVN was well equipped, with radios, airplanes, artillery and fighter planes, and that the Vietcong had virtually nothing, except light artillery pieces. Western observers believed the reverse, believed that the ARVN was a legitimate and real army, and that the Vietcong, more often than not wearing black pajamas, not even uniformed, were the fake army, the unreal one – why, they did not even have a chain of command. It was ironic; the United States had created an army in its own image, an army which existed primarily on paper, and which was linked to U.S. aims and ambitions and no way reflected its own society. We believed in the army, the South Vietnamese did not…. [There was an] illusion about a dynamic new leadership that would persist relentlessly through the years….”  [167]

 

                  Americans were delusionally incompetent, blinded by their power and deluded by it. Losing in Vietnam was “unthinkable” for Americans and, so, after they lost, that loss had to be disappeared. Amazingly, Nixon’s Peace with Honor was accepted as a kind of victory, even after the “North” Vietnamese took over and renamed Saigon “Ho Chi Minh City.”

Random Thoughts: The Politics of Conspiracies

Random Thoughts: The Politics of Conspiracies

Peter Schultz

 

                  Iran-Contra: Meese requested an independent prosecutor “to avoid even the appearance of a cover-up.” This was ironic insofar as such an appointment facilitated the on-going cover-up by transforming political issues - political incompetence and ignorance - into legal issues, issues of alleged criminality. The focus became alleged illicit behavior, not incompetent, ignorant political conduct (or imperialistic conduct). Politically delusional/imperialistic officials were transformed into possible criminals. And then, for the most part, exonerated of any indictable criminality, most importantly Reagan, Bush, Shultz, and Weinberger. No criminals, no incompetent imperialists here! It’s all good!

[Which are worse, competent or incompetent imperialists? Just wondering. Ironically, there is an argument in favor of political and governmental incompetence. 🤪✌️] 

 

Random Thoughts #2

                  Nir’s and Reed’s and Cummings conspiracy theories regarding Iran-Contra assessed. These speculations have interesting political consequences, viz., obscuring, even disappearing two prominent characteristics of American politics and politics in general, incompetence and ignorance. 

 

Hasenfus shot down and numerous coincidences are visible. See below. Conclusion: “No, sir, it’s all too convenient.” Maybe but so too are these conspiracy theories. Even more convenient than the alternatives. 

 

(1) conspiracy theories cover up incompetence, which was by and large ignored during the Iran-Contra investigations. Even the criminality theme makes incompetence disappear. Watergate, for example: Nixon wasn’t incompetent but was a wily, deceitful, manipulating criminal and, hence, very dangerous. Iran-Contra: North wasn’t an incompetent but a super patriot who, like many other super patriots, got carried away by his virtue, his patriotism in attempts to serve Ronald Reagan loyally, rescue hostages, and re-establish Iran as an ally of the US and the West. He was, potentially, a hero, which is often how Marines are seen. Or, for others, those against him, he was a criminal, a bad person, but not an incompetent, ignorant person. And, of course, it is almost impossible for Americans to think, accept that a lt. col. in the USMC was an incompetent screw-up. No? 

 

Conspiracy theories help fortify the idea that our elites, military and political, aren’t screw-ups or delusional. 

 

(2) Such theories make politics seem rational, by and large. That is, not crazy, not a madhouse, not full of sound and fury signifying nothing. So they make nihilism disappear; they make the nihilism question disappear or the nihilistic phenomenon look like the manifestation of psychological dis-ease. Nihilism is not intrinsic to the political. Insofar as this is not the case, then it may be said that such theories foster ignorance of a very high order about the political. 

 

(3) Such theories detract from another ignored theme of the Iran-Contra investigations: the capabilities of the Sandinistas, the Iranians, the Israelis, and Hezbollah and other terrorists. Kidnapping, especially kidnapping CIA agents, like IEDs, like 9/11, like caves, like bikes (in Vietnam) illustrate intelligence, savvy, and calculation of relatively high orders. Hence, the fact that the US got outplayed in Iran and Nicaragua is covered up. Reagan, Bush, Shultz, Weinberger, North, Poindexter, McFarlane, Meese, even leaders in the US Congress all got outplayed, just as the US got outplayed in Oklahoma City and 9/11. 

 

Covering up these phenomena cover up the role ignorance played and plays in politics. Ignorance not only of one’s enemies but also ignorance of the political itself. Power, even great, unrivaled power is not sufficient to dominate, to emerge victorious in the political realm. And insofar as that goes, it also means that the pursuit of dominance, of hegemony is bound to fail and is bound to lead to inhuman cruelty. Imperialism is not only ultimately futile; it is also ultimately inhuman. This is ignorance of a very high order, and seems to be an ignorance that pervades the political realm. 

 

(4) the Office of the Independent Prosecutor, with its focus on criminality has the same implications and consequences by turning political phenomena into legal phenomena, which makes political delusion disappear and then reappear as criminality. But which is more significant, political delusions or crimes, insanity or venality? The answer seems pretty obvious, no? 

 

Does this mean there are no conspiracies? Absolutely not. There are, all over the place. But care needs be taken so they don’t blind us to the incompetence and ignorance that characterize the political. NB: Reed and Cumming and NIr present to us what can only be described as a movie, Hollywood version of what was going on, with Reagan the bad guy, and Bush as the good guy who was trying to unseat the bad guy to re-establish or fortify a status quo that was, before Reagan became president, quite sound and decent. And, of course, being from Yale and with an American Yankee pedigree, Bush could be trusted to right wrongs and get America back on track again. Not quite “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” but enough like it to make me smile. Ironically though:

 

• "'Except something has gone wrong.  It's been over nine months since the shootdown, and we now feel that Reagan has somehow miraculously been able to survive.  I was able to talk to North early on, and apparently, right after the incident, your attorney general and the secretary of state seized important documents and were able to contain the scandal by eliminating most of the damaging evidence.  Like I say, it’s been a miracle, but so far Reagan appears to have fought off the coup'" (Reed & Cummings 360-361).
•  

Apparently, the political realm is a madhouse after all! 

 

 

Thoughts on George H. W. Bush and Extremism

 

Thoughts on George H. W. Bush and Extremism

Peter Schultz

 

                  In his book, Firewall, Lawrence E. Walsh quotes Anthony Lewis’s comments on George H. W. Bush regarding his lies about his involvement in Iran-Contra, to wit:

 

“Surely there is a level of brazen falsehood that they should be ashamed to breach.” [459]

 

                  So, ala’ Lewis, there are acceptable falsehoods politicians may tell and not be ashamed. Let’s say, “Yes, that’s true.” But what does it teach us about politics and politicians?” Well, that’s easy: falsehoods, up to a certain point, are acceptable, maybe even beneficial or honorable. The noble lie, for example.

 

                  So, the debate as Lewis would frame it would be: Did Bush’s lies – because we know he lied – reach the level of being shameful? He, Bush, shouldn’t be criticized for lying; but he should be criticized for brazenly, shamefully lying.

 

                  Further, take note that the issue at stake – Should the United States have sold arms to recover hostages – has disappeared completely. Or: Are the lives of hostages worth selling some arms for? Or: is it wise to always not deal with terrorists? Even if that means torture and death for hostages?  Seems a bit extreme, does it not? It even seem to be an extremism like the extremism of the hostage-takers.

 

                  Is extremism, like lying, intrinsic to politics? Does affirming the political mean affirming extremism? It would be good to know.

The Uses and Limitations of Secrecy and Duplicity

 

The Uses and Limitations of Secrecy and Duplicity

Peter Schultz

 

                  James Rosen’s biography of John Mitchell, The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate illustrates that secrecy and duplicity are intrinsic to politics and that they are both useful and harmful. Rosen seems to think that it was secrecy and duplicity that brought Nixon down, without realizing that secrecy and duplicity are intrinsic to politics. To wit:

 

“The two [Nixon and Kissinger] had come full circle. Less than two weeks after learning of the Joint Chiefs of Staff spying – a ‘lesion’ Nixon admitted having created with his and Kissinger’s incessant back-channel plotting – the president had blithely resumed scheming with his national security advisor, whom he had … described as ‘not a good security risk,’ to use the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a back channel to circumvent the secretary of defense.” [179-80]

 

                  “Had Liddy forsaken the code of omerta, the testimony of Dean and Magruder against Mitchell would have crumbled.” [262]

 

                  “Mitchell harbored few illusions about Haig, whom he came to consider ‘a power grabber …  pleased to abandon Nixon to maintain his power base in Washington and the military.’  Shown the transcript of the Ehrlichman-Welander interrogation many years later, the former attorney general declared that had Nixon seen it, he would never have appointed Haig … as chief of staff. Had that happened, of course, historians would never have had to grapple … with …  questions about Haig’s conduct – and loyalties – in the latter stages of Watergate: the disclosure of Nixon’s taping system, the origins and discovery of the eighteen-and-a-half-minute gap, the pardon.

 

“Thus, by the time he died, Mitchell realized his burial of the Moorer-Radford scandal  –  undertaken to spare the nation a court martial involving the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to give Nixon a ‘whip hand’ over them  –  effectually sealed the president’s own fate. By allowing men he distrusted, and who distrusted him, to remain in place in the White House and at the Pentagon, Nixon ensured that the cultural secrecy and paranoia that infused his first term persisted until the Watergate scandal aborted his presidency.” [175-176]

 

Secrecy and duplicity permeated the Nixon administration but then they are intrinsic to politics, and they flourish in the political arena, even more so, apparently, than the likes of Nixon and Mitchell were aware. Mitchell may have harbored few illusions about Haig as “a power grabber,” but he did harbor illusions about the political. As Machiavelli might have counseled him, Mitchell needed to be dis-llusioned by learning that persons like Haig, who seem most committed to seeking the good, are actually seeking power and fame.  In that way then, Mitchell might have learned the lesson Machiavelli emphasized most heavily, viz., “to learn to be able not to be good.”

 

 

Our Problems

Peter Schultz

 

 

We Americans tend to personalize our problems or the causes of our problems. So, presently, many are committed to the idea that Trump is the cause of our problems. And there is no doubt that is partially correct. But our problems are also political, meaning traceable to the Constitution itself. 

 

The default position, so to speak, of politics is despotism. Politics tends towards despotism, toward repression, and toward war. That is politics “natural disposition,” as human history and our current state of affairs illustrates. Some Anti-Federalists thought of government and its politics as a mechanical screw that, once it was created, would turn down, slowly but steadily repressing the people. The people could resist but they could not reverse the downward direction of the political screw. With government and politics, we humans are always being screwed! 

 

Most Federalists rejected this account of government and politics, seeing government and politics as the engine of progress. So, they created a powerful government that would appeal, would draw in the ambitious, those who loved fame, which Hamilton called the leading passion of the noblest minds. Get the ambitious, the lovers of fame into your government, allow them to control your politics and impressive public projects intended to secure the common good would follow, as night follows day. Such projects would even be seen as normal, and as required if a person wanted to become a great president sitting atop a great nation. 

 

But if the default position of politics is despotism, then the most prominent political actors would prove to be drawn to despotism, as Lincoln pointed out in his address on “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” If the default position of politics is despotism, then it is intrinsically dangerous to entrust anyone with a great deal of power or to try to draw into your government those who love fame and seek to prove they deserve it. Benjamin Franklin pointed this out during the constitutional convention when he proposed not paying presidents because creating an office that appealed to the avaricious and the ambitious would lead to endless political battles and the peaceful would not seek such offices, would not be part of the political or governmental scene. Avarice and ambition combined are, Franklin implied, political nitro glycerin. Besides, as Lincoln pointed out in his “Perpetuation” address, fame can be harvested by freeing slaves or enslaving freemen. So when fame, which is a kind of immortality, is the goal, justice and even humanity become less attractive and, perhaps, tend to disappear from the political scene. Something which seems all-too-evident currently. 

 

Trump is not a human being who should be respected. Far from it. But he is playing in an arena, the political arena, that gives him, so to speak, home field advantage. In that arena, respectability is of very limited value, as has been shown by more than a few presidents and other politicians. And, as some Anti-Federalists realized, there is little that can be done to limit the repression, the violence Trump’s rule will cause. Decisions were made a long time ago and now there is only acceptance. [The Counselor] Or as Billy Pilgrim reminds us: So it goes. [Slaughterhouse Five] 

 

Comments on The Rule of Empires

 

Comments on The Rule of Empires

Peter Schultz

 

                  Timothy H. Parsons has written an excellent book entitled The Rule of Empires: Those Who Built Them, Those Who Endured Them, and Why They Always Fail.

 

                  In his concluding chapter, Parsons comments on George Bush’s invasion of Iraq as part of his project to liberate Iraq by deposing Saddam Hussein and making Iraq democratic. Referring to critics of Bush, Parson’s wrote:

 

                  “The critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom often overlook [certain] realities. To be sure, scholars of empire such as Nicholas Dirks did their part by linking theorists, politicians, and military contractors that profited from the invasion of Iraq with the conquistadors, nabobs, and other specialist groups behind earlier imperial projects…. [Moreover], most opponents of President Bush’s preemptive war made the mistake of equating empire and imperialism solely with the unjust use of hard power…. Empires are indeed immoral, but it would have been more convincing to argue against the Iraq invasion by using historical precedents to show why it was doomed to fail. Instead, the Bush administration’s leftist critics assumed that empire was still practical; they just differed from the neoconservatives and imperial apologists in branding it a sin.” [426-27]

 

                  Parson’s view is that “it is simply no longer feasible to reorder another society through military force alone…. The central mistake running through much of the debate over the Iraqi occupation was the assumption that imperial methods were still effective and could be put to legitimate uses. The Bush administration … planners made the fundamental mistake of believing their own legitimizing rhetoric.” [427]

 

                  But it should be emphasized that the failure of empires or of imperialism is not merely a historical phenomenon. It is also a political phenomenon.  Empires and other imperialistic projects destroy themselves. They are, for various reasons, unmaintainable, even futile. And one of the reasons even the leftist critics of Bush’s imperial project assume that empire is practical is because they are still “believers;” that is, they don’t realize that ultimately, like empires, politics is futile. Failure is intrinsic to the political. Or as Socrates put it: Only when philosophers rule of rulers become philosophers will humankind be cured of its ills. And those, like George Bush, who think that they have a moral obligation to right the world’s wrongs will repeatedly subject the world to savagery, death, and destruction.

Connections: JFK, Vietnam, and the British Empire

 

Connections: JFK, Vietnam, and the British Empire

Peter Schultz

 

                  JFK said he would pull out of Vietnam after winning the 1964 presidential election. This means, among other things, that JFK was willing to wage war in Nam – and defend waging it – in order to win the 1964 election. Winning the election was more important than ending (or losing) the war. Winning re-election was more important than doing justice or ending the injustice of the war.

 

                  JFK did not take on the injustice of the war; that is, he did not take on American imperialism. He was, essentially, an imperialist.

 

                  JFK’s version of success: ending the Vietnam War without undermining American imperialism, dominance, hegemony. The war was “a mistake,” but American imperialism, hegemony was not.

 

                  What follows once you embrace imperialism/ hegemony? Don’t you end up with war(s)? Don’t you end up with Kenya, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Ukraine, and Iraq?

 

                  Plus, you end up justifying imperialism. That is, you cannot see the injustice of empire, of imperialism. You can only see its justice, despite the appearance of great injustices like those committed by the British in Kenya and Malaysia or those committed by the United States in Vietnam. As a result, there is no way out.

 

                  Caroline Elkins’ title for her excellent history of the British Empire, Legacy of Violence, is misleading. It should have been “Legacy of Imperialism” because imperialism was/is the root issue, not violence. General Giap was correct: (1) Robert McNamara was an imperialist and (2) the Vietnam war occurred because he – and the United States – was imperialist. To catalogue “the mistakes” that allegedly led to the war obfuscates, “disappears” the root phenomenon, imperialism. McNamara’s alleged realism blinded him – and us – to reality.