September 8, 2006

The Man Behind Politicking on Blood

Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal

September 11, 2006 will give Bush and his team a perfect opportunity to increase the intensity of their rhetoric by instilling in Americans a complex fear they first experienced five years ago. In a systematic effort to launch a psychological warfare against Americans, Bush and his team began the month by making public speeches. The presidential speech to war veterans at an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City repeated the usual Bush rhetoric about  “security of the civilized world”, “the fight against terrorism”, and vows of not leaving Iraq until “victory is achieved”. This “victory” he defined as the establishment of a “stable democratic US ally”. His oft-repeated line made headlines again: “the alternative was facing terrorists in the streets of our own cities”.

Does he really believe what he says? Do Americans believe him? It seems yes. Bush is totally convinced that he his fighting for the security of Americans. While there is a growing anti-war lobby and there are critics of the Iraq war in the United States, a very significant number of Americans also believe that their government is, in fact, involved in Iraq for the sake of their security. How has this claim been enshrined as truth for millions of Americans? Certainly the events of September 11, 2001 helped, but even without that defining day, it would not have been difficult for Bush and his colleagues to convince many Americans that a war must be fought to secure their lifestyle. This is so because millions of Americans live in a fabricated virtual reality made real for them by their media. They have little access and far less inclination to see the world through the eyes of anyone but their own leaders, most of whom share a common vision. The so-called two main political parties of the United States share a remarkably large ground. Democrats may do some politicking during the upcoming election season, but in reality they merely want a more efficient, less expensive killing campaign against the “terrorists”. These “terrorists” remain the same for both Bush and his opponents.

As the election season approaches, Bush and his team are likely to convince millions of  Americans that their security is in fact (i) the security of the civilized world; (ii) it depends on victory in the war on terror, and (iii) victory in war on terror, in turn, depends on victory in Iraq. Given these, the United States of America should not leave Iraq until victory is achieved. Victory in Iraq is then equated with the establishment of a government friendly to America.

In reality, it is not Mr. Bush, who speaks these words, the real ideologue of this most recent American adventure is the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. A man who understands and uses all the tricks of politicking on blood, Rumsfeld has gained enormous influence on American foreign policy through his shrewd ways of having others subscribe to his ideas. He often remains in the background, but others say what he believes. It appears that he has closely studied mechanisms adopted by the Nazis to mastermind mass psychology.

One of the things he learned from the Nazis is to use high-sounding words aimed at gaining a moral upper hand against enemies. Thus, it was Rumsfeld who actually launched this season of politicking two days before the speech made by Mr. Bush. He said that the critics of the Iraq war were suffering from “moral and intellectual confusion” and he compared them with those who appeased the Nazis. It is important to note that two days later, Mr. Bush repeated what Rumsfeld had wanted him to say: “America's current enemies are the successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century”. Mr. Bush also repeated the Rumsfeld verdict on critics: “Many war critics could be sincere and patriotic, but they could not be more wrong.”

 Rumsfeld is able to survive mounting calls for his resignation over Iraq, partly because he has placed himself in the centre of the American midterm election campaign. He moves in circles where he can find support and launches his aggressive plans from platforms which carry weight and prestige. For example, he chose a meeting of war veterans to use certain new terms he has recently coined: “The world faces a new type of fascism,” he said. The keyword here is fascism, which gives a sense of moral uplift to the war veterans. When faced with a vocabulary that matches his, he attempts to blunt the attack. For instance, in a recent article published in the LA Times, he chose to respond to the Amnesty International’s description of Guantánamo Bay, which called it “the gulag of our times”. His response is decidedly aimed at American readership: the facilities at Guantánamo Bay “include a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library where the book most requested is Harry Potter)”, he said. For most Americans, a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library are symbols of paradise.

Rumsfeld’s rise to power and influence has been phenomenal. He graduated from Princeton University (1954), served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor, then transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of captain in 1989. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.

But his real rise to power influence began in 1969, when he resigned from the Congress to join the President's Cabinet. From then on, it has been one long journey to more and more power and influence. Like many an American politician, he had a business stint. But after making the money he wanted to make at G. D. Searle & Co. (1977-85), he returned to public service because he had a mission to accomplish. This became possible in January 2001 when he was sworn in as the twenty-first US Secretary of Defense. This man, most likely to be remembered as the butcher of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, is also known for his short aphoristic sarcasms: “Man and the turtle are very much alike,” he once said, “for neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.”

Back to the 2006 Contents                                                           Back to the Main Page