Newt Gingrich’s Real Change 8

I finished Newt Gingrich’s Real Change.  In my latest reading, Newt talked about what we should have done after September 11, 2001.  Essentially, he said that we should have educated the public about Islamic extremism, which would have convinced even people on the Left that defeating radical Islam coincided with their own value of tolerance.  Newt also says that we should have gained foreign allies and made the U.S. Government more efficient so that it could handle the War on Terror more effectively, and that we also should have built roads in Afghanistan and modernized the country “so farmers could make money without relying on the illicit heroin trade for a living” (page 296).

I’m not sure what I feel about the War on Terror nowadays.  It really hasn’t been on my radar lately, to tell you the truth, though I’m sure that it’s still on the radar of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or who lost loved ones in the wars that we fought to prevent another 9/11.  I agree with Newt that our government should be efficient so that it could protect the country.  As far as going into other countries and effecting regime-change goes, however, I’m not sure how reliable of a policy that is, since it breeds resentment, and it takes a lot of money and effort to keep anti-American forces from gaining ground—-and, even if we win for a while, the anti-American forces can still come back.

What I appreciated about Newt’s commentary was his statement that we should go beyond such platitudes as “stay the course”.  I myself blush when I consider that I bought into the “stay the course” platitude.  But I did so because I thought that I had to choose among the options that were presented to me, and one side was saying that we should “stay the course”, whereas the other side was saying something different.  But there’s nothing wrong with critiquing how we “stay the course”, if we choose to do so.  I applaud those who did that, such as Bill Clinton, who criticized the mismanagement of money in the Iraq War.

Newt Gingrich’s Real Change 4

In Newt Gingrich’s Real Change, I read Chapter 9: “An Example of Real Change and a Failure to Change: Giuliani’s New York City versus Iraq as Contrasts in Change Leadership”.

1.  Regarding Rudy Giuliani, Newt essentially argues that Mayor Giuliani of New York City and Boston police chief Bill Bratton developed strategies that dramatically brought down the crime rate in New York City.  Critics have maintained that Giuliani does not deserve all or any of the credit for this decrease in crime.  I’ve heard some say that Giuliani’s police chief brought down the crime rate.  Others maintain that the national crime bill that passed under President Bill Clinton brought down crime on a national level, including in New York City.

Newt himself does not assert that Giuliani deserves all of the credit.  After all, Newt states on page 104 that “thanks to the efforts of Mayor David Dinkins [who was Giuliani's Democratic predecessor], there would be 4,000 more policemen joining the force…”  But I agree with Newt that Giuliani deserves some credit.  On page 104, Newt talks about how Giuliani and Bratton proposed for anti-drug units to work at night, which was when the drug dealers worked.  That sounds like a reasonable way to fight drug crimes.

2.  What interested me in my reading of Newt’s commentary on Iraq was how Newt and the advocates for the policies that he criticized had some of the same goals.  At least that’s my impression.  Both did not want for the Americans to appear to be imperial aggressors or occupiers in Iraq.  Newt, for example, praises White House envoy Zalmay Khalilzad for attempting to organize an interim Iraqi government consisting of Iraqis, but Newt believes that these efforts were obstructed when American bureaucrats entered the picture and botched up attempts to rebuild the country.

But I think that even those Newt criticizes did not want for America to be seen as an unwelcome and imperialistic presence in Iraq.  Newt acknowledges that a small number of troops were able to topple Saddam Hussein in an effective manner, but he believes that more American troops were needed to help Iraq rebuild and to keep the country safe.  Those who supported keeping the number of American troops in Iraq low, however, did so because they did not want for Americans to become tied down in the region (as occurred in Vietnam), and perhaps also because they did not desire to appear imperialistic.  Newt criticizes the American Army in Iraq for focusing on the training of Iraqi soldiers rather than countering insurgents, but those who emphasized the training of Iraqi soldiers probably did so because they wanted for Iraqis to take charge of their own country and security so that Americans would not have to run the country, creating resentment among Iraqis who would see Americans as occupiers.

Memorial Day 2008

When people talk about the soldiers who have given their lives for freedom in America, I wish that they’d elaborate. I mean, Saddam Hussein didn’t threaten to conquer the United States. Neither did Al Qaeda. They couldn’t take us over and establish a Muslim dictatorship, right? Probably not, but they were able to disrupt American society in a number of ways. A nuclear missile in their hands is not an attractive prospect! So are our soldiers fighting for freedom in America? Well, they’re fighting for our survival, and we need to be alive to enjoy freedom, so I guess, in a sense, that they are.

With certain other wars, I’m not too certain. How did Serbia affect us? Or Somalia? For these missions, we weren’t really fighting for the freedom of Americans, but for the lives and freedom of others. So, in those cases, we are fighting for American values, but not really for the benefit of Americans themselves.

The necessity of our wars is continually debated. Was World War II necessary to protect American freedom? Yes, if you believe that Hitler stood a chance of taking over the United States (as occurred in that Star Trek episode with Joan Collins). No, if you think that Russia and Nazi Germany could have destroyed each other, without us intervening.

How about our wars in Korea and Vietnam? I guess we were fighting for American freedom, on some level. We didn’t want Communism to expand, since eventually it could reach us. Our desire was to show the world that we were strong, not weak, for that could protect America better. But we lost Vietnam, and we’re still around to tell the tale. The loss of all of those lives really served no purpose. It was unnecessary for our protection. And the South Vietnamese lost out because we did not win.

Are the current wars necessary? Again, that depends on whom you ask. Some think we are defeating Islamic extremists who can threaten America’s safety. Others maintain that we’re only making the Muslims madder, which imperils Americans even more.

Whether or not we are persuaded of the necessity of war, I hope that all of us can admire and respect those who gave their lives. I can say that Vietnam was a waste because we lost, but American servicemen still laid down their lives believing that they were contributing to freedom, of both Americans and also the people of Vietnam. In terms of the current war, I respect those who voluntarily go to Iraq and Afghanistan, for that demonstrates a selflessness that is beyond me.

War is debatable in many cases, but we should still honor those who gave their lives in it. They believed that they were fighting for a good cause. And perhaps, in a number of cases, they truly were.

Bush Lied?

The Associated Press has an article today entitled Study: Bush, aides ‘propagated’ false information about Iraq. According to the article, the Center for Public Integrity recently released a study that found “935 false statements by eight top administration officials that mentioned Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, or links to Al-Qaeda, on at least 532 separate occasions.”

Apparently, the CPI is trying to argue that Bush deliberately lied, for it said in a statement that its study calls into question “the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were merely the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.” The study maintains that there was intelligence in 2002 that contradicted the Bush Administration’s claims. Although Cheney asserted in that year that Iraq unequivocally had weapons of mass destruction, former CIA chief George Tenet states that the Vice-President’s statement exceeded the CIA’s assessments at the time. And a 2002 assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which Tenet confirmed, found an absence of any “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al-Qaeda.”

I have three points.

First of all, why is this news? We’ve heard this tape before. Critics of President Bush have long chanted the mantra that “Bush lied, people died.” The slogan has been on bumper stickers since at least 2004.

Second, the Center for Public Integrity is not exactly an unbiased source, for it receives money from leftists such as George Soros and Bill Moyers (see this documented article). I’m not saying that its claims should be ignored, anymore than one should disregard the arguments of neoconservative publications like Commentary and The Weekly Standard. My problem is that the Associated Press is presenting this study as if it’s the product of a non-partisan group, which is hardly the case. The study is from a leftist group repeating the typical leftist line. There is nothing newsworthy about that.

Third, the study seems to rely a lot on the words of George Tenet. Okay. Allow me to do the same. An article in the April 27, 2007 New York Times states the following about Tenet on WMDs:

“Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs, calling the episode ‘one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure.’ He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. ‘In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible,’ he writes.” (emphasis mine).

Bush doesn’t sound like a liar to me, at least not in Tenet’s account. According to Tenet, there was intelligence in 2002 claiming that Iraq had WMDs. And, in his recollection, there was no doubt in his mind that Saddam Hussein possessed something dangerous. Retrospectively, as far as Tenet is concerned, any other idea appeared implausible at the time. Maybe that was why so many prominent Democrats voted to go to war.

Regarding links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, in an October 7, 2002 letter to Senator Bob Graham of the Intelligence Committee, Tenet affirms the following:

“Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-Qa’ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa’ida going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa’ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa’ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al-Qa’ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa’ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa’ida, suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action” (see C.I.A. Letter to Senate on Baghdad’s Intentions).

So Tenet thought that there was a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. And we know Bush was lying from what, again?

So Bush was not deliberately lying. On the issue of WMDs, he was misinformed. That doesn’t mean that he was totally wrong, since there existed a strong possibility that Saddam was trying to create weapons of mass destruction. Why else did he go to Niger for help? Also, although the 9/11 Commission Report presents the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda as somewhat stormy, it does offer examples of the two working together and seeking to establish a stronger bond (see The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 61, 66). So the Center for Public Integrity is wrong to depict Bush’s claims as thoroughly false, just because they contradict its selective, one-sided interpretation of the past.