The Scum at the Top
Commentary on the Rats in Washington
The Price of Arrogance
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
Page 39
© May 17, 2004
In a war that could go on for decades, you cannot simply
detain people indefinitely on the sole authority of the
secretary of Defense
America is ushering in a new responsibility era," says President
Bush as part of his standard stump speech, "where each of us
understands we're responsible for the decisions we make in
life." When speaking about bad CEOs he's even clearer as to
what it entails: "You're beginning to see the consequences of
people making irresponsible decisions. They need to pay a price
for their irresponsibility."
"I take full responsibility," said Donald Rumsfeld in his
congressional testimony last week. But what does this mean?
Secretary Rumsfeld hastened to add that he did not plan to
resign and was not going to ask anyone else who might have
been "responsible" to resign. As far as I can tell, taking
responsibility these days means nothing more than saying the
magic words "I take responsibility."
After the greatest terrorist attack against America, no one was
asked to resign, and the White House didn't even want to launch
a serious investigation into it. The 9/11 Commission was created
after months of refusals because some of the victims' families
pursued it aggressively and simply didn't give up. After the
fiasco over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, not one person
was even reassigned. The only people who have been fired or
cashiered in this administration are men like Gen. Eric Shinseki,
Paul O'Neill and Larry Lindsey, who spoke inconvenient truths.
Rumsfeld went on in his testimony to explain that "these terrible
acts were perpetrated by a small number." That's correct, except
the small number who are truly responsible are not the handful of
uniformed personnel currently being charged for the prison abuse
scandal. The events at Abu Ghraib are part of a larger breakdown
in American policy over the past two years. And it has been
perpetrated by a small number of people at the highest levels
of government.
Since 9/11, a handful of officials at the top of the Defense
Department and the vice president's office have commandeered
American foreign and defense policy. In the name of fighting
terror they have systematically weakened the traditional
restraints that have made this country respected around the
world. Alliances, international institutions, norms and
ethical conventions have all been deemed expensive indulgences
at a time of crisis.
Within weeks after September 11, senior officials at the Pentagon
and the White House began the drive to maximize American freedom
of action. They attacked specifically the Geneva Conventions,
which govern behavior during wartime. Donald Rumsfeld explained
that the conventions did not apply to today's "set of facts." He
and his top aides have tried persistently to keep prisoners out
of the reach of either American courts or international law,
presumably so that they can be handled without those pettifogging
rules as barriers. Rumsfeld initially fought both the uniformed
military and Colin Powell, who urged that prisoners in Guantanamo
be accorded rights under the conventions. Eventually he gave in
on the matter but continued to suggest that the protocols were
antiquated. Last week he said again that the Geneva Conventions
did not "precisely apply" and were simply basic rules.
The conventions are not exactly optional. They are the law of
the land, signed by the president and ratified by Congress.
Rumsfeld's concern - that Al Qaeda members do not wear uniforms
and are thus "unlawful combatants" - is understandable, but that
is a determination that a military court would have to make. In
a war that could go on for decades, you cannot simply arrest and
detain people indefinitely on the say-so of the secretary of
Defense.
The basic attitude taken by Rumsfeld, Cheney and their top aides
has been "We're at war; all these niceties will have to wait."
As a result, we have waged pre-emptive war unilaterally, spurned
international cooperation, rejected United Nations participation,
humiliated allies, discounted the need for local support in Iraq
and incurred massive costs in blood and treasure. If the world
is not to be trusted in these dangerous times, key agencies of
the American government, like the State Department, are to be
trusted even less. Congress is barely informed, even on issues
on which its "advise and consent" are constitutionally mandated.
Leave process aside: the results are plain. On almost every issue
involving postwar Iraq - troop strength, international support, the
credibility of exiles, de-Baathification, handling Ayatollah Ali
Sistani - Washington's assumptions and policies have been wrong.
By now most have been reversed, often too late to have much
effect. This strange combination of arrogance and incompetence
has not only destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq. It has had the
much broader effect of turning the United States into an
international outlaw in the eyes of much of the world.
Whether he wins or loses in November, George W. Bush's legacy
is now clear: the creation of a poisonous atmosphere of
anti-Americanism around the globe. I'm sure he takes full
responsibility.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
The Scum at the Top - Home
E-mail: dwagner2@isd.net
©2007 DJW
Last Modified:
January 15, 2007