By William Fisher
Going to war is always a last resort -- only when all avenues of diplomacy have failed.
Sound familiar?
It should. Because that was the mantra of the Bush Administration for well over a year before we invaded Iraq. But we now know that the White House and its minions cherry-picked intelligence, hoodwinked the Congress and spooked the American people with tales of WMDs and mushroom clouds and Iraq's Al Qaida/9/11 connection, and conducted pretend diplomacy while our generals were busily planning their "shock and awe" campaign.
Now we are hearing similar rhetoric concerning Iran. Except that there's one difference: There hasn't been any U.S. diplomacy with Iran at all, pretend or otherwise.
For the past couple of years, America has outsourced its Iran diplomacy to the folks Donald Rumsfeld famously derided as "old Europe". And resisted their many efforts to get us to join the talks directly.
But outsourcing is not a policy. It's a cop-out.
The truth is that the United States has no Iran policy. And we are about to witness the consequences.
Unlike the period of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, when we alternately ignored or misinformed the United Nations, we are now fully engaged on Iran with the Security Council. But to what end?
There are no additional sanctions the U.S. alone can impose on Iran that would make any difference at all. And it is unlikely that expect Russia and China to go much further. Too much business for them there. And too much oil.
And even if they did agree, it seems clear that Iran would rather risk being isolated from the world and branded a pariah than be seen to be caving to the West. Moreover, Iran's risk may be exaggerated. Pariah or not, there will always be countries in the world prepared to sell Iran what it needs - and buy its oil.
Moreover, while it's possible that the "military option" our generals are now busily planning for may have its intended effect - terrifying the Iranians into believing they are about to become the next Iraq - it's equally possible they will see it as a faux option. The Iranian leadership may be stubborn and bigoted, but we can be sure it's under no illusions about the state of the U.S. military. They know the devastating effects our Iraq adventure has had on our war-fighting and war-financing capability. They are also fully aware of how pivotal their influence might be in helping to put the wheels back on the Iraq project.
The Iranians probably also know the American people are probably not in any mood to support another invasion of anybody any time soon. Especially when they come to understand just how large - and how relatively powerful - Iran is. Not even Dick Cheney would have the chutzpah to claim Iran was going to be another Iraqi cakewalk.
Consider another perspective. Put yourself inside the head of an average Iranian. Notwithstanding U.S. government spin, every bit of reliable reporting from inside Iran tells us that the Iranian people want their nuclear program to go forward. That they are proud of it. That, because they are surrounded by nuclear powers, they believe they are entitled to it to protect their own national security.
And it is not only the mullahs who feel this way - though they are of course driving President Ahmadinejad to front this latest chapter in the "clash of civilizations" for purely domestic political purposes. Most of what is left of the "reform movement" in Iran, though it opposes the mullahs, is reliably reported to feel the same way.
Paradoxically, current U.S. "policy" is having the unintended consequence of uniting Iran. It is fuelling Persian Pride. Given the intensity of Iranian nationalism, the millions of dollars Congress recently gave the State Department to "promote freedom" in Iran might better have been spent helping Katrina victims.
So how realistic is the way the Bush Administration is framing U.S. options - give up your nuclear ambitions, or else? (Or else what?)
This seems to many observers to be a phony option. Even our former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage - no dove he - is urging the Administration to start serious and comprehensive talks with Iran. No proxies. Face-to-face. It is in furtherance of that objective that our "old Europe" allies, plus China and Russia, might well play their most valuable role.
Can the U.S. talk to a country whose leader denies the Holocaust and vows to throw all the Israelis into the sea? Well, in the world of realpolitik, yes. We talk with oppressive and authoritarian regimes every day - and send hundreds of millions in aid to many of them. If you think the Iranians are the only ones who want to erase Israel, have a look at some of the newspapers that come out of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or the Palestinian territories.
OK, so let's say we talk to Iran, offer all the carrots we can think of to win abandonment of their nuclear weapons ambitions, and still the talk gets us nowhere, what then? Can we live with a nuclear Iran? Well, in a weapons context, Iran isn't yet nuclear and appears to be some years from being there. Meanwhile, we are living with a nuclear Pakistan, a state far more unstable than Iran. And with a nuclear India, on whose future benign intent we have just bet the ranch. And with a nuclear North Korea, a charter member of the axis of evil, with whom the so-called six-party talks have thus far yielded little - except no war. And with a nuclear Russia, whose dysfunctional guardianship of "surplus" nukes should give the world a global heart attack.
Israel will disagree. Not unreasonably, it sees an Iran with weaponized nukes as an existential threat. Also not unreasonably, Iran sees Israel in the same way.
The bottom line is that it's clearly in the world's interest to get Iran to back off. But the Bush Administration needs to understand that merely rattling its sabers has real limits. It is now being obliged to confront those limits, and it is from that reality -- not from generals talking about deploying tactical nuclear bunker-busters -- that we ought to be developing an achievable Iran policy.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
ALAS, POOR SCOTT
By William Fisher
Poor Scott McClellan. He has what must be the least satisfying job in Washington.
Members of the White House press corps report that McClellan is generally a decent guy and no villain. But, like most presidential press secretaries before him, he is kept out of the loop on many key issues so that his "plausible deniability" is not compromised.
The result is that it often appears his job is defending the indefensible.
The latest evidence of that condition of employment came last week, when Scottie angrily denied a newspaper report suggesting that in 2003 President George W. Bush declared the existence of biological weapons laboratories in Iraq while knowing it was not true.
You may recall that on May 29, 2003, the president was crowing about two trailers captured in Iraq, which he asserted were mobile biological laboratories. He declared triumphantly, "We have found the weapons of mass
destruction."
But The Washington Post reported last week that a Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission unanimously concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons and sent its findings to the Pentagon two days before the president's statement.
The Post asserted that the mission's field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were classified and shelved, but that for nearly a year after that, the Bush administration continued to publicly assert that the trailers were biological weapons factories.
McClellan called the account "reckless reporting" and said Bush made his statement based on the intelligence assessment of the CIA and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency.
He said the Post story was "nothing more than rehashing an old issue that
was resolved long ago."
Maybe so, maybe no. And we may never know which.
But let me offer the blasphemous possibility that maybe there was no cover-up here. Let me suggest that this latest dust-up with the media may have been more about inefficiency than about conspiracy.
Katrina and other disasters have by now made us all too familiar with the shameful inefficiency of this government. But, to greater or lesser degrees, all governments tend to be inefficient.
So maybe the folks who sent the Pentagon report to the White House weren't exactly the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency or the Secretary of Defense. And maybe the folks who actually received the report weren't the president's chief of staff or his national security advisor. Maybe they were mid-level staffers. And, just maybe, they tried to get their superiors' attention, but failed.
Having worked inside the government bubble, I know a bit about what concentrates the minds of senior officials and what ends up in the bottom of the inbox. It's often all about whose name is shown as the sender of stuff to the White House and the seniority of the person who receives it.
In fact, given the government's daily tsunami of paper, I find it near-miraculous that this report made it from the DIA to the White House in two days. In government, two days is a millisecond. For that kind of speed, you could end up with the Medal of Honor (except, of course, if you're transmitting bad news).
But, you ask, how about the classified version of the 122-page final report that got to the White House three weeks after the initial three-page field report? Surely, the president was briefed on that, so knew his claims about the mobile labs was bogus, though he went right on pitching their significance.
OK, you got me. I don't know for an absolute fact that anyone ever had the chutzpah to tell the president these inconvenient facts, but I have to assume that sometime during the year he was busy selling the mobile lab fairytale, someone must have given him the facts.
And that he chose to ignore them.
And then neglected to tell poor Scott McClellan.
Giving him "plausible deniability".
Poor Scott McClellan. He has what must be the least satisfying job in Washington.
Members of the White House press corps report that McClellan is generally a decent guy and no villain. But, like most presidential press secretaries before him, he is kept out of the loop on many key issues so that his "plausible deniability" is not compromised.
The result is that it often appears his job is defending the indefensible.
The latest evidence of that condition of employment came last week, when Scottie angrily denied a newspaper report suggesting that in 2003 President George W. Bush declared the existence of biological weapons laboratories in Iraq while knowing it was not true.
You may recall that on May 29, 2003, the president was crowing about two trailers captured in Iraq, which he asserted were mobile biological laboratories. He declared triumphantly, "We have found the weapons of mass
destruction."
But The Washington Post reported last week that a Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding mission unanimously concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons and sent its findings to the Pentagon two days before the president's statement.
The Post asserted that the mission's field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were classified and shelved, but that for nearly a year after that, the Bush administration continued to publicly assert that the trailers were biological weapons factories.
McClellan called the account "reckless reporting" and said Bush made his statement based on the intelligence assessment of the CIA and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency.
He said the Post story was "nothing more than rehashing an old issue that
was resolved long ago."
Maybe so, maybe no. And we may never know which.
But let me offer the blasphemous possibility that maybe there was no cover-up here. Let me suggest that this latest dust-up with the media may have been more about inefficiency than about conspiracy.
Katrina and other disasters have by now made us all too familiar with the shameful inefficiency of this government. But, to greater or lesser degrees, all governments tend to be inefficient.
So maybe the folks who sent the Pentagon report to the White House weren't exactly the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency or the Secretary of Defense. And maybe the folks who actually received the report weren't the president's chief of staff or his national security advisor. Maybe they were mid-level staffers. And, just maybe, they tried to get their superiors' attention, but failed.
Having worked inside the government bubble, I know a bit about what concentrates the minds of senior officials and what ends up in the bottom of the inbox. It's often all about whose name is shown as the sender of stuff to the White House and the seniority of the person who receives it.
In fact, given the government's daily tsunami of paper, I find it near-miraculous that this report made it from the DIA to the White House in two days. In government, two days is a millisecond. For that kind of speed, you could end up with the Medal of Honor (except, of course, if you're transmitting bad news).
But, you ask, how about the classified version of the 122-page final report that got to the White House three weeks after the initial three-page field report? Surely, the president was briefed on that, so knew his claims about the mobile labs was bogus, though he went right on pitching their significance.
OK, you got me. I don't know for an absolute fact that anyone ever had the chutzpah to tell the president these inconvenient facts, but I have to assume that sometime during the year he was busy selling the mobile lab fairytale, someone must have given him the facts.
And that he chose to ignore them.
And then neglected to tell poor Scott McClellan.
Giving him "plausible deniability".
Friday, April 07, 2006
GRADING OUR MBA PRESIDENT
By William Fisher
There is a consensus among CEOs and business school professors that there are just short of a dozen indispensable characteristics that are essential for an effective chief executive. Since the current chief executive of America Inc. is the first to hold a Masters degree in Business Administration, how does George W. Bush stack up?
What are these basic tenets? And how's our president doing?
1. Have a coherent vision for your organization's future.
When he ran for President in 2000, the cornerstones of George W. Bush's vision for America were a more competitive but more compassionate market economy, more "ownership" of more things by more people, a better-educated, healthier, more self-reliant and more ethical population that believed in the power of religious faith and acted accordingly, all working together under a smaller, more fiscally responsible government dedicated to maintaining a leadership role in the world. By example, America would continue to be the light at the end of the tunnel for the oppressed, the punished, the persecuted.
It was not until after the attacks of 9/11 that we heard anything about the president's mission to "spread democracy" throughout the world.
GWB promised to be a "uniter". Yet today, six years on, the U.S. is more sharply divided about more things than at any time since our post-Civil War history.
As globalization has changed patterns of production and consumption, we are less, not more, competitive on the world stage. It may be only natural for business to outsource jobs that can be performed more cost-effectively elsewhere, but our economy has been unable to replace the jobs it has lost with higher-skilled and better-paying ones. A substantial proportion of our higher-skilled workers - engineers, scientists, information technologists -- come from other countries as visitors or immigrants. The President's "No Child Left Behind" initiative was a positive start, but it has been woefully under-funded. Every international test shows us lagging far behind other industrialized countries in the skills we need to fill the jobs of the future - principally science and mathematics. More than 40 million people are without health care, millions of others continue to live below the poverty line, and the gap between "haves" and "have-nots" has become a chasm.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 presented the president with a second golden opportunity to unite us. That dreadful day gave him the unquestioning support of virtually every American, and most of the world's other peoples. If he had then called the leaders of both political parties to the cabinet office, there are no tools within reason they would not gladly have given him.
That turned out to be irrelevant. After all, doesn't an "imperial presidency" have the "inherent Constitutional authority" to craft its own tools, like the NSA domestic surveillance program? And order the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, to round up every "middle Eastern-looking" person he could find (notwithstanding that many of them were South Asians, including Sikhs from India) and throw them into jail without charges or lawyers (many were deported, but not a single person was convicted of any terror-related crime).
The world was totally with the president when the U.S. declared its Global War on Terrorism, retaliated against the source of the 9/11 attacks, and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Our country seemed to be making a good start in Afghanistan. But then, for reasons that continue to remain murky - "I am the president, see? And I do not have to explain myself to anyone", as he told Bob Woodward -- the president took a sharp left turn into Iraq on the basis of intelligence he knew to be suspect, never told us it might be suspect, and kept reinventing our reasons for that invasion.
Was it the image of the mushroom cloud? Or the yellowcake from Niger? Or the aluminum tubes? Or the defeat of Iraq's terrorists? Or was it to use Iraq as the first stop on the road to spreading democracy everywhere?
Whatever the reason (and we may never know), weeks after the "Mission Accomplished" appearance on the aircraft carrier, the president embarked on what he said he would never have any part of: "nation-building".
Now, there are two problems with nation-building. First, most development authorities don't believe it can be done - certainly not from the outside-in at the point of a rifle. Secondly, the president's nation-building project was carried out with unbelievable inefficiency.
His proconsul, Jerry Bremer, knew little about Iraq, was culturally tone-deaf, grew a vast, confusing and confused bureaucracy, but had no more of a plan than did the military for dealing with post-Saddam Iraq.
The coalition of the willing had too few troops. They bypassed the most effective units of the Iraqi army in their rush to Baghdad and sent the rest home with their weapons. What has happened since then is history. The soldiers we bypassed - the Saddam Fedayeen -- became the core of what we now call "the insurgency".
So we toppled a despicable despot but, in the process, created the very terrorist haven the president said he was determined to eliminate. Doing that has cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lost lives, and the rupture of our hard-won relationships with most of our friends and allies.
And, as for the U.S. remaining the world's "beacon of light", respect for our country has never been lower.
The president's "vision" of bringing democracy to the world has been called Wilsonian. But Woodrow Wilson was thinking of the League of Nations, not preemptive war.
2. Hire people who may be smarter than you are, and include them in crafting strategies and action plans to implement a collectively determined vision.
President Bush has surrounded himself largely with cronies -- old, trusted friends, from his days as governor of Texas, like Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice and Karen Hughes, and others from the generation of his father, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Many may well be smarter than he is. But he is famous for his loyalty to those around him, even to the point of defending the indefensible. Like conferring the Medal of Freedom on George Tenet, whose CIA provided the flawed intelligence that presaged the invasion of Iraq.
Until recently, their major talents have been far more political than substantive. Like Mr. Rove famously telling his Republican troops that 9/11 would provide a fail-proof platform for reelection in 2004.
And as for crafting strategies and action plans - managing the nuts and bolts of governance - there is persuasive evidence that we now have one of the most inefficient and poorly managed government bureaucracies in the nation's history. Just to cite two examples: the Katrina debacle and the near-unanimous failing report card on homeland security recently issued by members of the former September 11th Commission.
3. Listen to a lot of people who may not agree with your vision.
There is much to commend a man of genuine conviction and high principle, but White House insiders say President Bush has managed to win the trifecta of poor governance: ill-informed, opinionated and stubborn. There is little evidence that he welcomes views that aren't his own or those of his tiny coterie of advisors inside the echo chamber.
For example, he used all the power of the presidency to resist the formation of the 9/11 Commission (only to warmly embrace it when it became inevitable). He opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (only to warmly embrace it when it became inevitable). He fought the reorganization of the intelligence community in 2005 (only to warmly embrace it when it became inevitable). He allowed superkawks like the vice-president and secretary of defense to dominate the Iraq discussions and emasculate the National Security Council, many of whose staffers expressed serious doubts about the wisdom of the invasion. He rejected the informed planning done by the State Department about what to do after "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. He sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to shill his incomplete and super-hyped Iraq WMD case, and ignored Powell's "You break it, you own it" Pottery Barn admonition.
As president, Mr. Bush has instant access to any of the worlds most experienced and knowledgeable experts in virtually any field, but there is no publicly known evidence that he has availed himself of their advice. Or listened to "outsiders", except when they happen to agree with him.
4. Understand who your stakeholders are, pay attention to their views, and let them know how you're doing.
As CEO of America Inc., the president's stakeholders are not only all Americans but all the world's countries and important institutions.
At home, our born-again president has acted as though only half of us had a stake in the future of our country - his Republican base, and especially the so-called "social conservatives" whom he regards as so vitally important to his success. It was precisely this view that brought us the Terry Schiavo debacle, the nomination and un-nomination of Harriett Myers to sit on the Supreme Court, the president's endorsement of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, his endorsement of "intelligent design", his insistence on an "abstinence only" policy in the treatment of HIV-AIDS that cripples the effectiveness of our efforts, and the controversy that just won't go away - Roe v. Wade.
Abroad, he has failed to consult, much less listen to, most of our oldest friends and allies, much less those who have never been our friends - unless, of course, they have agreed to become our partners in the war on terror, in which case they get a free pass for their shortcomings. The countries with which we partnered to win World War Two and found the United Nations were derisively dismissed as "old Europe".
Why are countries abroad stakeholders in America Inc.? Well, for one thing, they buy the bonds that keep us operating in the face of the largest budget deficits in the history of the country. Secondly, they buy our products (though these days we buy a lot more of theirs). Thirdly, merely because of who we are, whatever happens to and in the U.S. impacts lots of other countries. Finally, globalization has made it virtually impossible for any single nation - even the world's lone remaining superpower - to achieve much unilaterally.
Meanwhile, what partners we have left are partners in the Global War on Terror. And they include some of the world's most stalwart bastions of democracy, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
And, as for letting your stakeholders know how you're doing, I suspect that one of the attributes for which history will long remember this Bush administration is its paranoid secrecy. There has never been a time in American history - not even in wartime - when so much government information has been classified. And as stakeholders, we are left to foot the bill - in the hundreds of millions - for all the folks who do the classifying.
The State of the Union message, in modern history the equivalent of the CEO's Annual Report message, has become a grotesquely choreographed "State of the Spin" extravaganza, complete with "guest stars" sitting beside the First Lady in the gallery. Instead of a thoughtful, sober and honest allocution of where we've been and where we're going, it has become a Chinese menu of un-defined or ill-defined or downright distorted one-liners describing the CEO's reputed achievements during the year, combined with a litany of vague promises about what the boss is going to do for America and the world in the year ahead.
The big problem with our stakeholder relations effort is that our stakeholders don't believe us. The reason is that they no longer have to depend solely on the White House for their information. In many parts of the developing world, there are almost as many satellite dishes as there are people. The Internet is growing exponentially. And even in the authoritarian states that claim to be our allies in the war against terror, the state controlled media does not treat the U.S. fondly.
They know all about Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo Bay. They know about "extreme renditions". They know about the CIA's secret airline that kidnaps people and sends them off to black hole prisons in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. They don't believe the president when he tells the world that "America doesn't torture". Or that "There are no wiretaps without warrants". And they know how vital our president thinks elections are - providing they result in outcomes favorable to us.
Presumably the president took some marketing courses during his MBA days, and knows that flawed products can't be sold for very long. But that's precisely what he's asked his old Texas crony, Karen Hughes, to do in her new role as America's public diplomacy maven. Only unwavering fealty can explain why Ambassador Hughes took this job on. Because it is simply un-doable.
Everywhere she travels, she finds herself facing skeptical, even hostile, audiences who let her know in no uncertain terms that American policy is unacceptable.
The reaction to Ms. Hughes overseas is to want to shoot the messenger. But the messenger is not the problem. The problem is the message. And it's the message of our MBA president.
So much for stakeholder relations.
5. Understand your competitors and the environments in which you and they operate.
Does America Inc. have "competitors"? It has a ton of them. Those that would replace our products and services - and the people who make or deliver them - with their own. Those that would undermine our values by unlawful or unethical behavior. Those that would like to see us destroyed. Authoritarian regimes that oppress their people. Others that represent potential threats.
How is the president of the world's lone surviving superpower supposed to deal with all of that? No one ever said it was going to be easy, but George W. Bush wasn't forced into being president. We (with a little help from the Supreme Court) gave him the job, and dealing with competitors goes with the territory.
The president has done well in recognizing that commercial competition has always existed among nations - it would be unthinkable for an MBA not to. But he has not done nearly as well in helping us prepare to be better, smarter competitors.
Second, credit the president with understanding that the Enrons of the world are part of the bad guys. But does he understand that corporate corruption represents a real and present danger to our very way of life -- that it may be just as threatening, albeit less bloody, as the Wahabis?
Third, is the president really convinced that a big part of being competitive on a world stage lies in building constructive partnerships with people and institutions dedicated to bringing about peaceful change?
There are some things that simply can't be solved by the projection of American power. Competition is one of them.
6. Give your strategists lots of latitude to do their planning, but subject them to frequent reality checks.
Almost no one truly qualified to take on a top policy job - whether in the private sector or in government - wants his boss playing micro-manager. Professional CEOs pride themselves on being able to recognize and hire top people, matching those people with the job at hand, and then delegating to them whatever authority they need to get the job done right.
But that's not the same as hiring someone and then forgetting about him or her. The president has an obligation to frequently ask senior officials - even at Cabinet level - what and how they're doing on major projects. And their responses can't be one-liners. They need to be detailed. Nor can they just be "good news" briefings. Top people need to feel free to tell the boss things he may not want to hear.
No one wants to hear bad news. But an effective CEO strives to create an environment in which reality reigns - whether it's good news or otherwise. From all we know about this White House, the president's most senior advisors go to great lengths to shield the boss from the bad news. And that's an environment that doesn't just happen; someone creates it.
7. Establish benchmarks to measure progress.
Ronald Reagan famously said of his nuclear relations with the Soviet Union, "Trust but verify"-not a bad phrase, by the way, to be etched into the facades of every government building in Washington. Verification is not rocket science. But it demands that top officials be required to develop sound, realistic benchmarks for tracking the progress of every major project - what's going to be accomplished, over what timeframe, by whom and at what cost.
What's tricky about benchmarks, however, is that you can waste a lot of time measuring the wrong things. The Pentagon invested millions into planning for the day Saddam's statue came down. There was no plan - hence, no benchmarks - for what happened the day after.
The president trusted but forgot to verify.
8. Develop alternative realistic scenarios. Always have a Plan B, C, or D, because every major policy initiative is likely to have "unintended consequences".
For people who work in think-tanks or in corporate planning, playing "what if?" games is as natural as the sunrise. They'll tell you it's part of the fun. Well, the sad truth is that a lot of people in the Bush Administration don't think it's fun and don't think it's necessary.
Maybe it's the intellectual arrogance that comes from living in the bubble. It's easy to feel omnipotent when you're in power. But it's also intellectually corrupt. And ultimately self-destructive.
The nation is now paying a very high price for that intellectual corruption - in lives and treasure lost in Iraq.
But it applies to virtually every other issue the White House deals with. Were "what if" scenarios built regarding the president's plans for social security, or his guest worker program, or energy independence, or Supreme Court nominations, or relationships with the Congress, or the Palestinian elections, and on and on?
Having worked in government, I'm pretty sure someone was doing a lot of "what if" work. But I'm also pretty sure no one in the White House and few in Congress were listening.
9. Be willing to admit and correct errors, even if this means altering the vision.
At one of his news conferences last year, the president was asked if he could think of a mistake he'd made. He put on his deer-in-the-headlights look, appeared to be thinking, and then came up empty.
He couldn't think of any mistakes he'd made.
Others, including many from his own party, have a different view. They point to plenty of mistakes - from Iraq to Harriett Myers to Social Security to the Medicare prescription drug plan to desecration of the environment to reneging on treaties to inequitable treatment of foreign countries.
But it seems not to be in this president's nature to fess up. Somehow, admitting a mistake equates with weakness.
Yet many of both the president's friends as well as his foes believe that his credibility has been held hostage to his stubbornness. GWB could do worse than to remember how John F. Kennedy dealt with the Bay of Pigs disaster: He went on television, admitted his error, and moved on - with the increased respect of the nation and the world.
10. Maintain the integrity of the organization and its goals through sound internal accounting and ethical guidelines.
I have no doubt that the Bush Administration's budget folks are every bit as creative as Enron's. The Medicare prescription drug plan provides a good example. The White House told Congress the project would cost $395 billion. Once the arm-twisting was done and the bill passed and signed, the president's budget mavens revised the cost upward to $552 billion - surely a fact they knew from the get-go.
This wasn't a case of shoddy accounting. It was a case of unethically manipulating the numbers. In the corporate world, it's called cooking the books.
For shoddy accounting, look to Iraq. Even by the estimates provided by the administration's own Special Inspector General, hundreds of millions of dollars appropriated by Congress has simply gone missing. Or look to the Pentagon, where government accountants have for years been unable to complete an audit because financial systems are in total disarray and because financial mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse are so ubiquitous.
There's an 11th attribute I would add to these basic CEO requirements -- to inspire.
Why do we hold onto some stocks we've bought although they haven't taken off yet? We generally do so because we believe that the company has the potential its top guy or gal tells us it has. We believe. Which means the CEO has the credibility to inspire us.
President Bush has, at best, inspired only half his stakeholders - and the number continues to dwindle as we speak. And lots of these conservatives no longer see the president as a conservative because, on his watch, the government and its deficit spending have become larger than at any time in the country's history. That breaks the two cardinal rules of conservatism.
The president has had far more opportunities than most of his predecessors to turn his fortunes around. He could have inspired all of us, most notably, after the 9/11 attacks. Yet he squandered that extraordinary measure of patriotic support by asking no sacrifice of any of us - though almost all of us would gladly have given him anything he needed. He told us not to worry, go to the mall, live life as usual. Then he cut the taxes of the wealthiest people in the country.
And that, I'm afraid, will be the legacy of our first MBA president. Unless things change radically and fast, he will leave office with an America weaker than it was before 9/11, and occupying the unique position of the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.
Think of some of the great business names of our time: Jack Welch of General Electric, Bill Gates of Microsoft, Andy Grove of Intel, Sam Walton of Walmart, Meg Whitman of Ebay. All of these CEOs faced huge problems during their tenures. Just as George W. Bush did when he ran Harkin Oil. But none of them, when faced with strategies that weren't working, urged their stakeholders to "stay the course". They adjusted - sometimes scrapped - failing strategies and developed better ones. And they always leveled with their stakeholders.
I don't know how many of these men and women earned MBA degrees. But I continue to wonder how our president ever made it through Harvard.
There is a consensus among CEOs and business school professors that there are just short of a dozen indispensable characteristics that are essential for an effective chief executive. Since the current chief executive of America Inc. is the first to hold a Masters degree in Business Administration, how does George W. Bush stack up?
What are these basic tenets? And how's our president doing?
1. Have a coherent vision for your organization's future.
When he ran for President in 2000, the cornerstones of George W. Bush's vision for America were a more competitive but more compassionate market economy, more "ownership" of more things by more people, a better-educated, healthier, more self-reliant and more ethical population that believed in the power of religious faith and acted accordingly, all working together under a smaller, more fiscally responsible government dedicated to maintaining a leadership role in the world. By example, America would continue to be the light at the end of the tunnel for the oppressed, the punished, the persecuted.
It was not until after the attacks of 9/11 that we heard anything about the president's mission to "spread democracy" throughout the world.
GWB promised to be a "uniter". Yet today, six years on, the U.S. is more sharply divided about more things than at any time since our post-Civil War history.
As globalization has changed patterns of production and consumption, we are less, not more, competitive on the world stage. It may be only natural for business to outsource jobs that can be performed more cost-effectively elsewhere, but our economy has been unable to replace the jobs it has lost with higher-skilled and better-paying ones. A substantial proportion of our higher-skilled workers - engineers, scientists, information technologists -- come from other countries as visitors or immigrants. The President's "No Child Left Behind" initiative was a positive start, but it has been woefully under-funded. Every international test shows us lagging far behind other industrialized countries in the skills we need to fill the jobs of the future - principally science and mathematics. More than 40 million people are without health care, millions of others continue to live below the poverty line, and the gap between "haves" and "have-nots" has become a chasm.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 presented the president with a second golden opportunity to unite us. That dreadful day gave him the unquestioning support of virtually every American, and most of the world's other peoples. If he had then called the leaders of both political parties to the cabinet office, there are no tools within reason they would not gladly have given him.
That turned out to be irrelevant. After all, doesn't an "imperial presidency" have the "inherent Constitutional authority" to craft its own tools, like the NSA domestic surveillance program? And order the then attorney general, John Ashcroft, to round up every "middle Eastern-looking" person he could find (notwithstanding that many of them were South Asians, including Sikhs from India) and throw them into jail without charges or lawyers (many were deported, but not a single person was convicted of any terror-related crime).
The world was totally with the president when the U.S. declared its Global War on Terrorism, retaliated against the source of the 9/11 attacks, and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Our country seemed to be making a good start in Afghanistan. But then, for reasons that continue to remain murky - "I am the president, see? And I do not have to explain myself to anyone", as he told Bob Woodward -- the president took a sharp left turn into Iraq on the basis of intelligence he knew to be suspect, never told us it might be suspect, and kept reinventing our reasons for that invasion.
Was it the image of the mushroom cloud? Or the yellowcake from Niger? Or the aluminum tubes? Or the defeat of Iraq's terrorists? Or was it to use Iraq as the first stop on the road to spreading democracy everywhere?
Whatever the reason (and we may never know), weeks after the "Mission Accomplished" appearance on the aircraft carrier, the president embarked on what he said he would never have any part of: "nation-building".
Now, there are two problems with nation-building. First, most development authorities don't believe it can be done - certainly not from the outside-in at the point of a rifle. Secondly, the president's nation-building project was carried out with unbelievable inefficiency.
His proconsul, Jerry Bremer, knew little about Iraq, was culturally tone-deaf, grew a vast, confusing and confused bureaucracy, but had no more of a plan than did the military for dealing with post-Saddam Iraq.
The coalition of the willing had too few troops. They bypassed the most effective units of the Iraqi army in their rush to Baghdad and sent the rest home with their weapons. What has happened since then is history. The soldiers we bypassed - the Saddam Fedayeen -- became the core of what we now call "the insurgency".
So we toppled a despicable despot but, in the process, created the very terrorist haven the president said he was determined to eliminate. Doing that has cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lost lives, and the rupture of our hard-won relationships with most of our friends and allies.
And, as for the U.S. remaining the world's "beacon of light", respect for our country has never been lower.
The president's "vision" of bringing democracy to the world has been called Wilsonian. But Woodrow Wilson was thinking of the League of Nations, not preemptive war.
2. Hire people who may be smarter than you are, and include them in crafting strategies and action plans to implement a collectively determined vision.
President Bush has surrounded himself largely with cronies -- old, trusted friends, from his days as governor of Texas, like Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice and Karen Hughes, and others from the generation of his father, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Many may well be smarter than he is. But he is famous for his loyalty to those around him, even to the point of defending the indefensible. Like conferring the Medal of Freedom on George Tenet, whose CIA provided the flawed intelligence that presaged the invasion of Iraq.
Until recently, their major talents have been far more political than substantive. Like Mr. Rove famously telling his Republican troops that 9/11 would provide a fail-proof platform for reelection in 2004.
And as for crafting strategies and action plans - managing the nuts and bolts of governance - there is persuasive evidence that we now have one of the most inefficient and poorly managed government bureaucracies in the nation's history. Just to cite two examples: the Katrina debacle and the near-unanimous failing report card on homeland security recently issued by members of the former September 11th Commission.
3. Listen to a lot of people who may not agree with your vision.
There is much to commend a man of genuine conviction and high principle, but White House insiders say President Bush has managed to win the trifecta of poor governance: ill-informed, opinionated and stubborn. There is little evidence that he welcomes views that aren't his own or those of his tiny coterie of advisors inside the echo chamber.
For example, he used all the power of the presidency to resist the formation of the 9/11 Commission (only to warmly embrace it when it became inevitable). He opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (only to warmly embrace it when it became inevitable). He fought the reorganization of the intelligence community in 2005 (only to warmly embrace it when it became inevitable). He allowed superkawks like the vice-president and secretary of defense to dominate the Iraq discussions and emasculate the National Security Council, many of whose staffers expressed serious doubts about the wisdom of the invasion. He rejected the informed planning done by the State Department about what to do after "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. He sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to shill his incomplete and super-hyped Iraq WMD case, and ignored Powell's "You break it, you own it" Pottery Barn admonition.
As president, Mr. Bush has instant access to any of the worlds most experienced and knowledgeable experts in virtually any field, but there is no publicly known evidence that he has availed himself of their advice. Or listened to "outsiders", except when they happen to agree with him.
4. Understand who your stakeholders are, pay attention to their views, and let them know how you're doing.
As CEO of America Inc., the president's stakeholders are not only all Americans but all the world's countries and important institutions.
At home, our born-again president has acted as though only half of us had a stake in the future of our country - his Republican base, and especially the so-called "social conservatives" whom he regards as so vitally important to his success. It was precisely this view that brought us the Terry Schiavo debacle, the nomination and un-nomination of Harriett Myers to sit on the Supreme Court, the president's endorsement of a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, his endorsement of "intelligent design", his insistence on an "abstinence only" policy in the treatment of HIV-AIDS that cripples the effectiveness of our efforts, and the controversy that just won't go away - Roe v. Wade.
Abroad, he has failed to consult, much less listen to, most of our oldest friends and allies, much less those who have never been our friends - unless, of course, they have agreed to become our partners in the war on terror, in which case they get a free pass for their shortcomings. The countries with which we partnered to win World War Two and found the United Nations were derisively dismissed as "old Europe".
Why are countries abroad stakeholders in America Inc.? Well, for one thing, they buy the bonds that keep us operating in the face of the largest budget deficits in the history of the country. Secondly, they buy our products (though these days we buy a lot more of theirs). Thirdly, merely because of who we are, whatever happens to and in the U.S. impacts lots of other countries. Finally, globalization has made it virtually impossible for any single nation - even the world's lone remaining superpower - to achieve much unilaterally.
Meanwhile, what partners we have left are partners in the Global War on Terror. And they include some of the world's most stalwart bastions of democracy, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.
And, as for letting your stakeholders know how you're doing, I suspect that one of the attributes for which history will long remember this Bush administration is its paranoid secrecy. There has never been a time in American history - not even in wartime - when so much government information has been classified. And as stakeholders, we are left to foot the bill - in the hundreds of millions - for all the folks who do the classifying.
The State of the Union message, in modern history the equivalent of the CEO's Annual Report message, has become a grotesquely choreographed "State of the Spin" extravaganza, complete with "guest stars" sitting beside the First Lady in the gallery. Instead of a thoughtful, sober and honest allocution of where we've been and where we're going, it has become a Chinese menu of un-defined or ill-defined or downright distorted one-liners describing the CEO's reputed achievements during the year, combined with a litany of vague promises about what the boss is going to do for America and the world in the year ahead.
The big problem with our stakeholder relations effort is that our stakeholders don't believe us. The reason is that they no longer have to depend solely on the White House for their information. In many parts of the developing world, there are almost as many satellite dishes as there are people. The Internet is growing exponentially. And even in the authoritarian states that claim to be our allies in the war against terror, the state controlled media does not treat the U.S. fondly.
They know all about Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Guantanamo Bay. They know about "extreme renditions". They know about the CIA's secret airline that kidnaps people and sends them off to black hole prisons in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. They don't believe the president when he tells the world that "America doesn't torture". Or that "There are no wiretaps without warrants". And they know how vital our president thinks elections are - providing they result in outcomes favorable to us.
Presumably the president took some marketing courses during his MBA days, and knows that flawed products can't be sold for very long. But that's precisely what he's asked his old Texas crony, Karen Hughes, to do in her new role as America's public diplomacy maven. Only unwavering fealty can explain why Ambassador Hughes took this job on. Because it is simply un-doable.
Everywhere she travels, she finds herself facing skeptical, even hostile, audiences who let her know in no uncertain terms that American policy is unacceptable.
The reaction to Ms. Hughes overseas is to want to shoot the messenger. But the messenger is not the problem. The problem is the message. And it's the message of our MBA president.
So much for stakeholder relations.
5. Understand your competitors and the environments in which you and they operate.
Does America Inc. have "competitors"? It has a ton of them. Those that would replace our products and services - and the people who make or deliver them - with their own. Those that would undermine our values by unlawful or unethical behavior. Those that would like to see us destroyed. Authoritarian regimes that oppress their people. Others that represent potential threats.
How is the president of the world's lone surviving superpower supposed to deal with all of that? No one ever said it was going to be easy, but George W. Bush wasn't forced into being president. We (with a little help from the Supreme Court) gave him the job, and dealing with competitors goes with the territory.
The president has done well in recognizing that commercial competition has always existed among nations - it would be unthinkable for an MBA not to. But he has not done nearly as well in helping us prepare to be better, smarter competitors.
Second, credit the president with understanding that the Enrons of the world are part of the bad guys. But does he understand that corporate corruption represents a real and present danger to our very way of life -- that it may be just as threatening, albeit less bloody, as the Wahabis?
Third, is the president really convinced that a big part of being competitive on a world stage lies in building constructive partnerships with people and institutions dedicated to bringing about peaceful change?
There are some things that simply can't be solved by the projection of American power. Competition is one of them.
6. Give your strategists lots of latitude to do their planning, but subject them to frequent reality checks.
Almost no one truly qualified to take on a top policy job - whether in the private sector or in government - wants his boss playing micro-manager. Professional CEOs pride themselves on being able to recognize and hire top people, matching those people with the job at hand, and then delegating to them whatever authority they need to get the job done right.
But that's not the same as hiring someone and then forgetting about him or her. The president has an obligation to frequently ask senior officials - even at Cabinet level - what and how they're doing on major projects. And their responses can't be one-liners. They need to be detailed. Nor can they just be "good news" briefings. Top people need to feel free to tell the boss things he may not want to hear.
No one wants to hear bad news. But an effective CEO strives to create an environment in which reality reigns - whether it's good news or otherwise. From all we know about this White House, the president's most senior advisors go to great lengths to shield the boss from the bad news. And that's an environment that doesn't just happen; someone creates it.
7. Establish benchmarks to measure progress.
Ronald Reagan famously said of his nuclear relations with the Soviet Union, "Trust but verify"-not a bad phrase, by the way, to be etched into the facades of every government building in Washington. Verification is not rocket science. But it demands that top officials be required to develop sound, realistic benchmarks for tracking the progress of every major project - what's going to be accomplished, over what timeframe, by whom and at what cost.
What's tricky about benchmarks, however, is that you can waste a lot of time measuring the wrong things. The Pentagon invested millions into planning for the day Saddam's statue came down. There was no plan - hence, no benchmarks - for what happened the day after.
The president trusted but forgot to verify.
8. Develop alternative realistic scenarios. Always have a Plan B, C, or D, because every major policy initiative is likely to have "unintended consequences".
For people who work in think-tanks or in corporate planning, playing "what if?" games is as natural as the sunrise. They'll tell you it's part of the fun. Well, the sad truth is that a lot of people in the Bush Administration don't think it's fun and don't think it's necessary.
Maybe it's the intellectual arrogance that comes from living in the bubble. It's easy to feel omnipotent when you're in power. But it's also intellectually corrupt. And ultimately self-destructive.
The nation is now paying a very high price for that intellectual corruption - in lives and treasure lost in Iraq.
But it applies to virtually every other issue the White House deals with. Were "what if" scenarios built regarding the president's plans for social security, or his guest worker program, or energy independence, or Supreme Court nominations, or relationships with the Congress, or the Palestinian elections, and on and on?
Having worked in government, I'm pretty sure someone was doing a lot of "what if" work. But I'm also pretty sure no one in the White House and few in Congress were listening.
9. Be willing to admit and correct errors, even if this means altering the vision.
At one of his news conferences last year, the president was asked if he could think of a mistake he'd made. He put on his deer-in-the-headlights look, appeared to be thinking, and then came up empty.
He couldn't think of any mistakes he'd made.
Others, including many from his own party, have a different view. They point to plenty of mistakes - from Iraq to Harriett Myers to Social Security to the Medicare prescription drug plan to desecration of the environment to reneging on treaties to inequitable treatment of foreign countries.
But it seems not to be in this president's nature to fess up. Somehow, admitting a mistake equates with weakness.
Yet many of both the president's friends as well as his foes believe that his credibility has been held hostage to his stubbornness. GWB could do worse than to remember how John F. Kennedy dealt with the Bay of Pigs disaster: He went on television, admitted his error, and moved on - with the increased respect of the nation and the world.
10. Maintain the integrity of the organization and its goals through sound internal accounting and ethical guidelines.
I have no doubt that the Bush Administration's budget folks are every bit as creative as Enron's. The Medicare prescription drug plan provides a good example. The White House told Congress the project would cost $395 billion. Once the arm-twisting was done and the bill passed and signed, the president's budget mavens revised the cost upward to $552 billion - surely a fact they knew from the get-go.
This wasn't a case of shoddy accounting. It was a case of unethically manipulating the numbers. In the corporate world, it's called cooking the books.
For shoddy accounting, look to Iraq. Even by the estimates provided by the administration's own Special Inspector General, hundreds of millions of dollars appropriated by Congress has simply gone missing. Or look to the Pentagon, where government accountants have for years been unable to complete an audit because financial systems are in total disarray and because financial mismanagement, waste, fraud and abuse are so ubiquitous.
There's an 11th attribute I would add to these basic CEO requirements -- to inspire.
Why do we hold onto some stocks we've bought although they haven't taken off yet? We generally do so because we believe that the company has the potential its top guy or gal tells us it has. We believe. Which means the CEO has the credibility to inspire us.
President Bush has, at best, inspired only half his stakeholders - and the number continues to dwindle as we speak. And lots of these conservatives no longer see the president as a conservative because, on his watch, the government and its deficit spending have become larger than at any time in the country's history. That breaks the two cardinal rules of conservatism.
The president has had far more opportunities than most of his predecessors to turn his fortunes around. He could have inspired all of us, most notably, after the 9/11 attacks. Yet he squandered that extraordinary measure of patriotic support by asking no sacrifice of any of us - though almost all of us would gladly have given him anything he needed. He told us not to worry, go to the mall, live life as usual. Then he cut the taxes of the wealthiest people in the country.
And that, I'm afraid, will be the legacy of our first MBA president. Unless things change radically and fast, he will leave office with an America weaker than it was before 9/11, and occupying the unique position of the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.
Think of some of the great business names of our time: Jack Welch of General Electric, Bill Gates of Microsoft, Andy Grove of Intel, Sam Walton of Walmart, Meg Whitman of Ebay. All of these CEOs faced huge problems during their tenures. Just as George W. Bush did when he ran Harkin Oil. But none of them, when faced with strategies that weren't working, urged their stakeholders to "stay the course". They adjusted - sometimes scrapped - failing strategies and developed better ones. And they always leveled with their stakeholders.
I don't know how many of these men and women earned MBA degrees. But I continue to wonder how our president ever made it through Harvard.
SOME GOOD NEWS FROM THE MSM
By William Fisher
It was 55 years ago. I was a cub reporter for the Daytona Beach (Florida) News Journal, an AM-PM family-owned daily with a circulation of something under 100,000.
Daytona Beach was a kind of sleepy beach town in those days. But that was before NASCAR. Before changing demographics started sending retirees. And before there was a Disneyworld, which later attracted millions more tourists to nearly Orlando.
Daytona Beach is located in Volusia County. Fifty-five years ago, it was cited in sociology textbooks – including the one I used in college -- as the most corrupt county in the United States. The county and most of its officials were in the pockets of the Coca Cola Company and the Florida East Coast Railway. Law enforcement officers were paid on the “fee system”, meaning they got so much per head for people they arrested.
And, since 55 years ago Jim Crow was the law of the south, most of those who were arrested were African-American or, as the locals called them, “nigras”.
The county seat, a redneck cow-town named Deland, was about 25 miles from Daytona Beach. That’s where I happened to attend college – Stetson University, then a Bible-thumping Southern Baptist institution that was convinced that dancing led to pregnancy – and banned the word dancing from the college newspaper, which I edited.
Deland was the place the newspaper eventually sent me to cover cops and courts. It was a heady experience; my title was Bureau Chief. There was one other fulltime person in our bureau.
Being a young and idealistic wanabee journalist, I wrote a lot of pieces about the so-called justice system in Deland, especially the treatment of blacks, which included routine weekend evening raids by the cops into “nigratown”, and the arrest of just about anything that moved.
If you were among the unlucky folks who found themselves in the county jail, it would cost you a $25 bond to get sprung. Back then, $25 was a lot of money, especially for these poor black folks.
I also wrote about the fee system, the rubber-stamp court, and the inherent injustice and dysfunctionality of both.
That wasn’t so unusual because, as I said, I was young and idealistic. What was unusual was that the Daytona Beach News-Journal ran many of these stories, some on page one above the fold.
I shouldn’t have been surprised. Muckraking journalism was something of a tradition in the Davidson family, which owned and ran my newspaper. The publisher was Herbert Davidson, and when I was in Daytona Beach, I could watch him sucking on his pipe, always animated, pacing, his bald head threatening to cause snow-blindness among the troops in the newsroom.
My boss was his son, Tippen Davidson, who cut his journalistic teeth working for the old Chicago News Bureau, where it was S.O.P. for a reporter to phone a family to say, “Do you know your son was just killed in a car crash?” Though young, Tip was one of those old-fashioned news people who were desperately unhappy unless they were racing around the newsroom ripping paragraphs of copy out of reports’ typewriters (yes, typewriters).
The chief editorial writer was a kindly old gent who taught me to use the teletype machine, but whose principal talent was syntactically poking his thumb in the eyes of on-the-take local officials, sweetheart contracts, and similar corruption. He had no shortage of subject matter.
I was proud of my newspaper. And I was even prouder last week when, surfing the web, I stumbled across a citation for a web page from the News Journal. It was a blistering editorial excoriating the FBI. The headline read, “Protesting is Not Terrorism -- So why is the FBI policing democracy as if it is?”
The editorial was about the FBI snooping on peaceful demonstrations. It said the Patriot Act “has given the agency the rationale to spy on and infiltrate protest and advocacy groups in their meeting rooms, in their online discussion groups, in their organizational sessions as well as during demonstrations. The breadth of the spying and surveillance operations is such that the FBI has monitored even such harmless organizations as Food Not Bombs, which feeds the homeless.”
It concluded that the FBI “has redefined domestic terrorism so broadly as to include acts that ‘intimidate or coerce a civilian population’ or ‘influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.’ From there to defining a mass anti-war demonstration as ‘intimidation’ or ‘coercion’ is a small step, which the FBI has been all too glad to take. We're back to the ways of the 1960s, when FBI and CIA tentacles extended, illegally, into student protest groups, with this difference: This time, the tentacles are backed by law, according to the FBI's interpretations. If that's the case, it isn't just the FBI that's misguided. It's what passes for law.”
The paper’s current editor is Marc Davidson, Tip’s son. The Davidson family still owns the much-expanded paper, and it’s heartening to know that it hasn’t sold out to some multimedia conglomerate, and that it’s still prepared to speak out against injustice.
It was 55 years ago. I was a cub reporter for the Daytona Beach (Florida) News Journal, an AM-PM family-owned daily with a circulation of something under 100,000.
Daytona Beach was a kind of sleepy beach town in those days. But that was before NASCAR. Before changing demographics started sending retirees. And before there was a Disneyworld, which later attracted millions more tourists to nearly Orlando.
Daytona Beach is located in Volusia County. Fifty-five years ago, it was cited in sociology textbooks – including the one I used in college -- as the most corrupt county in the United States. The county and most of its officials were in the pockets of the Coca Cola Company and the Florida East Coast Railway. Law enforcement officers were paid on the “fee system”, meaning they got so much per head for people they arrested.
And, since 55 years ago Jim Crow was the law of the south, most of those who were arrested were African-American or, as the locals called them, “nigras”.
The county seat, a redneck cow-town named Deland, was about 25 miles from Daytona Beach. That’s where I happened to attend college – Stetson University, then a Bible-thumping Southern Baptist institution that was convinced that dancing led to pregnancy – and banned the word dancing from the college newspaper, which I edited.
Deland was the place the newspaper eventually sent me to cover cops and courts. It was a heady experience; my title was Bureau Chief. There was one other fulltime person in our bureau.
Being a young and idealistic wanabee journalist, I wrote a lot of pieces about the so-called justice system in Deland, especially the treatment of blacks, which included routine weekend evening raids by the cops into “nigratown”, and the arrest of just about anything that moved.
If you were among the unlucky folks who found themselves in the county jail, it would cost you a $25 bond to get sprung. Back then, $25 was a lot of money, especially for these poor black folks.
I also wrote about the fee system, the rubber-stamp court, and the inherent injustice and dysfunctionality of both.
That wasn’t so unusual because, as I said, I was young and idealistic. What was unusual was that the Daytona Beach News-Journal ran many of these stories, some on page one above the fold.
I shouldn’t have been surprised. Muckraking journalism was something of a tradition in the Davidson family, which owned and ran my newspaper. The publisher was Herbert Davidson, and when I was in Daytona Beach, I could watch him sucking on his pipe, always animated, pacing, his bald head threatening to cause snow-blindness among the troops in the newsroom.
My boss was his son, Tippen Davidson, who cut his journalistic teeth working for the old Chicago News Bureau, where it was S.O.P. for a reporter to phone a family to say, “Do you know your son was just killed in a car crash?” Though young, Tip was one of those old-fashioned news people who were desperately unhappy unless they were racing around the newsroom ripping paragraphs of copy out of reports’ typewriters (yes, typewriters).
The chief editorial writer was a kindly old gent who taught me to use the teletype machine, but whose principal talent was syntactically poking his thumb in the eyes of on-the-take local officials, sweetheart contracts, and similar corruption. He had no shortage of subject matter.
I was proud of my newspaper. And I was even prouder last week when, surfing the web, I stumbled across a citation for a web page from the News Journal. It was a blistering editorial excoriating the FBI. The headline read, “Protesting is Not Terrorism -- So why is the FBI policing democracy as if it is?”
The editorial was about the FBI snooping on peaceful demonstrations. It said the Patriot Act “has given the agency the rationale to spy on and infiltrate protest and advocacy groups in their meeting rooms, in their online discussion groups, in their organizational sessions as well as during demonstrations. The breadth of the spying and surveillance operations is such that the FBI has monitored even such harmless organizations as Food Not Bombs, which feeds the homeless.”
It concluded that the FBI “has redefined domestic terrorism so broadly as to include acts that ‘intimidate or coerce a civilian population’ or ‘influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.’ From there to defining a mass anti-war demonstration as ‘intimidation’ or ‘coercion’ is a small step, which the FBI has been all too glad to take. We're back to the ways of the 1960s, when FBI and CIA tentacles extended, illegally, into student protest groups, with this difference: This time, the tentacles are backed by law, according to the FBI's interpretations. If that's the case, it isn't just the FBI that's misguided. It's what passes for law.”
The paper’s current editor is Marc Davidson, Tip’s son. The Davidson family still owns the much-expanded paper, and it’s heartening to know that it hasn’t sold out to some multimedia conglomerate, and that it’s still prepared to speak out against injustice.
AMNESTY TAKES ON RENDITION
By William Fisher
As U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her team continue to face increasingly harsh criticism from Muslim communities, Amnesty International has issued a new report on one of the practices they criticize most: rendition.
The new report – “Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and disappearance” – describes a U.S. covert operation in which people are arrested or abducted, transferred and held in secret or handed over to countries where they have faced torture and other ill-treatment.
Amnesty lists dozens of destinations around the world where planes associated with "rendition" flights have landed and taken off -- and lists private airlines with permission to land at U.S. military bases worldwide.
The organization says it has records of nearly 1,000 flights directly linked to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), most of which have used European airspace. It claims these flights have been carried out by planes that “appear to have been permanently operated by the CIA through front companies.”
While the U.S. has acknowledged that it uses rendition -- a fact widely reported in the international press and on television – the new Amnesty report is likely to further complicate Dr. Rice’s current efforts to “win the hearts and minds” of Arabs and other Muslims.
In recent weeks, the Secretary has met with a variety of Muslim groups in the U.S. and abroad. Their view of U.S. policies in the “Global War on Terror” has sometimes been respectful, sometimes raucous, but largely accusatory, skeptical and passionate.
For example, in a recent meeting with British Muslims, Rice heard complaints about U.S. policies in Iraq, Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and the American-run detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Representatives of such groups were present almost everywhere the secretary went during what was billed as a goodwill visit. Many are also telling Rice that the Bush administration should engage, not isolate, the new Hamas government in the Palestinian areas, because it was elected in a process Washington backed.
Local editorial commentary on Rice’s two-day outreach visit to northwest England has been correspondingly harsh. Britain’s Guardian newspaper carried a half-page cartoon showing Rice and her host, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, holding a banner saying: “The Case for War.” The banner was riddled with holes and the caption read, “Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire,” a reference to a line in the Beatles song “A Day in the Life.”
Dissatisfaction with U.S. policies has also complicated the work of Rice’s public diplomacy chief, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a Bush Administration insider tasked by the president to improve the U.S. image in the Muslim world.
During their visit to the United Kingdom, Rice and Hughes defended the continued use of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some terrorist suspects have been held for years without trial. Rice said the U.S. doesn’t want to keep the prison open longer than necessary, but added: “If the alternative is to release people back on the street so they can do harm again, that we’re not going to do.”
Rice said, “The United States recognizes … that there are questions about American foreign policy.” But, she asked Muslims to give the Bush administration credit for ending a six-decade policy of backing dictators in the Middle East and promoting democracy instead.
Virtually every public opinion poll taken in Europe, Asia and the Middle East shows increasing hostility toward the U.S. and plummeting approval for its foreign policies.
Amnesty’s report is unlikely to improve the situation. It details the destinations and ownership of specific aircraft linked to people interviewed by the organization who have been transferred illegally. For example one particular aircraft is known to have made over 100 stops in Guantanamo Bay. Another took a detainee to Egypt from Germany after he was kidnapped in Italy. Amnesty says there were 488 recorded landings or take-offs between February 2001 and July 2005.
The new report says the U.S. “is manipulating commercial arrangements in order to be able to transfer people in violation of international law.” Amnesty’s Secretary General, Irene Khan, said, “It demonstrates the length to which the U.S. government will go to conceal these abductions."
She added, "The callous and calculated multiplicity of abuses is shocking. People captured have been subjected to a range of abuses of human rights by a number of governments acting in collusion, and all of this has been shrouded by secrecy and deceit."
The organization urged the aviation sector to ensure that aviation companies do not lease their aircraft in circumstances in which they may be used in renditions. Specifically, it called on governments to insist that any plane or helicopter used to carry out the missions of the intelligence services be declared a 'state' flight, regardless of whether they are carried out using civilian aircraft, prohibit the use of airspace and airports for renditions and actively investigate suspected rendition cases, and disclose the full extent of these practices and the fate of those whose whereabouts are still unknown.
Egypt has been a prime destination for victims of renditions. The Egyptian prime minister noted in 2005 that the U.S. has transferred some 60-70 detainees to that country, and a former CIA agent with experience in the region believes that "hundreds" of detainees may have been sent by the U.S. to prisons in other Middle Eastern countries.
The U.S. has acknowledged the capture of about 30 "high value" detainees whose whereabouts remain unknown, and its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is reportedly investigating some three dozen additional cases of "erroneous rendition", in which people were detained based on flawed evidence or confusion over names.
Criticism of the rendition practice has not been limited to U.S. officials. In Britain, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee has accused ministers of failing in their duty to find out whether Britain has been complicit in US policy. The U.K. government has admitted that 200 suspect CIA flights had used British airspace.
In a report highly critical of the government's attitude toward human rights abuses, members of the committee say they have not been told the full story despite months of trying. They summoned the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to give evidence again on the issue.
The Council of Europe earlier named five countries that failed to explain what steps they were taking to protect people from being detained and mistreated through rendition.
Meanwhile, criticism continues from human rights and religious leaders in the U.S.
Prof. George Hunsinger, who teaches at Princeton University Theological Seminary and is organizing a National Religious Campaign Against Torture, told IPS, “Outsourcing torture to other regimes is the moral equivalent of practicing it ourselves. How did we enter into league with the world's most despicable torturers? Where is the outcry? What is happening to our country?”
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law, told IPS that rendition “is a symptom of the great illness afflicting our nation, secrecy.” He added, “We need more than just Amnesty International to shine light on these practices -- the American people must stand up and demand knowledge and accountability.”
Jo Guldi, a historian at the University of California at Berkeley, told IPS, “No threat is so great that we can afford to cannibalize the very democratic principles upon which our own freedoms turn.”
And Angelina Fisher, Arthur Helton Fellow at advocacy group Human Rights First, told IPS, “Failure by the United States to address the allegations of extraordinary rendition undermines the United States’ stated commitment to the Convention Against Torture and raises serious questions about the government’s respect for the principles of international cooperation.”
Fisher was one of the primary researchers and authors of a report on rendition issued by the Bar Association of the City of New York and Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the New York University School of Law.
It’s unclear – and intelligence experts say improbable – whether in the face of worldwide and persistent criticism, the U.S. has discontinued its rendition program. It has received far harsher criticism of its prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that facility remains very much open for business – and very much in the news.
Yet, given these kinds of policies, one has to wonder whether the Public Diplomacy job that President Bush gave his old Texas buddy, Karen Hughes, is do-able at all. Mr. Bush should know from his training as an MBA that professional marketing can do only so much to sell a flawed product.
As U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her team continue to face increasingly harsh criticism from Muslim communities, Amnesty International has issued a new report on one of the practices they criticize most: rendition.
The new report – “Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and disappearance” – describes a U.S. covert operation in which people are arrested or abducted, transferred and held in secret or handed over to countries where they have faced torture and other ill-treatment.
Amnesty lists dozens of destinations around the world where planes associated with "rendition" flights have landed and taken off -- and lists private airlines with permission to land at U.S. military bases worldwide.
The organization says it has records of nearly 1,000 flights directly linked to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), most of which have used European airspace. It claims these flights have been carried out by planes that “appear to have been permanently operated by the CIA through front companies.”
While the U.S. has acknowledged that it uses rendition -- a fact widely reported in the international press and on television – the new Amnesty report is likely to further complicate Dr. Rice’s current efforts to “win the hearts and minds” of Arabs and other Muslims.
In recent weeks, the Secretary has met with a variety of Muslim groups in the U.S. and abroad. Their view of U.S. policies in the “Global War on Terror” has sometimes been respectful, sometimes raucous, but largely accusatory, skeptical and passionate.
For example, in a recent meeting with British Muslims, Rice heard complaints about U.S. policies in Iraq, Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and the American-run detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Representatives of such groups were present almost everywhere the secretary went during what was billed as a goodwill visit. Many are also telling Rice that the Bush administration should engage, not isolate, the new Hamas government in the Palestinian areas, because it was elected in a process Washington backed.
Local editorial commentary on Rice’s two-day outreach visit to northwest England has been correspondingly harsh. Britain’s Guardian newspaper carried a half-page cartoon showing Rice and her host, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, holding a banner saying: “The Case for War.” The banner was riddled with holes and the caption read, “Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire,” a reference to a line in the Beatles song “A Day in the Life.”
Dissatisfaction with U.S. policies has also complicated the work of Rice’s public diplomacy chief, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a Bush Administration insider tasked by the president to improve the U.S. image in the Muslim world.
During their visit to the United Kingdom, Rice and Hughes defended the continued use of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some terrorist suspects have been held for years without trial. Rice said the U.S. doesn’t want to keep the prison open longer than necessary, but added: “If the alternative is to release people back on the street so they can do harm again, that we’re not going to do.”
Rice said, “The United States recognizes … that there are questions about American foreign policy.” But, she asked Muslims to give the Bush administration credit for ending a six-decade policy of backing dictators in the Middle East and promoting democracy instead.
Virtually every public opinion poll taken in Europe, Asia and the Middle East shows increasing hostility toward the U.S. and plummeting approval for its foreign policies.
Amnesty’s report is unlikely to improve the situation. It details the destinations and ownership of specific aircraft linked to people interviewed by the organization who have been transferred illegally. For example one particular aircraft is known to have made over 100 stops in Guantanamo Bay. Another took a detainee to Egypt from Germany after he was kidnapped in Italy. Amnesty says there were 488 recorded landings or take-offs between February 2001 and July 2005.
The new report says the U.S. “is manipulating commercial arrangements in order to be able to transfer people in violation of international law.” Amnesty’s Secretary General, Irene Khan, said, “It demonstrates the length to which the U.S. government will go to conceal these abductions."
She added, "The callous and calculated multiplicity of abuses is shocking. People captured have been subjected to a range of abuses of human rights by a number of governments acting in collusion, and all of this has been shrouded by secrecy and deceit."
The organization urged the aviation sector to ensure that aviation companies do not lease their aircraft in circumstances in which they may be used in renditions. Specifically, it called on governments to insist that any plane or helicopter used to carry out the missions of the intelligence services be declared a 'state' flight, regardless of whether they are carried out using civilian aircraft, prohibit the use of airspace and airports for renditions and actively investigate suspected rendition cases, and disclose the full extent of these practices and the fate of those whose whereabouts are still unknown.
Egypt has been a prime destination for victims of renditions. The Egyptian prime minister noted in 2005 that the U.S. has transferred some 60-70 detainees to that country, and a former CIA agent with experience in the region believes that "hundreds" of detainees may have been sent by the U.S. to prisons in other Middle Eastern countries.
The U.S. has acknowledged the capture of about 30 "high value" detainees whose whereabouts remain unknown, and its Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is reportedly investigating some three dozen additional cases of "erroneous rendition", in which people were detained based on flawed evidence or confusion over names.
Criticism of the rendition practice has not been limited to U.S. officials. In Britain, the House of Commons foreign affairs committee has accused ministers of failing in their duty to find out whether Britain has been complicit in US policy. The U.K. government has admitted that 200 suspect CIA flights had used British airspace.
In a report highly critical of the government's attitude toward human rights abuses, members of the committee say they have not been told the full story despite months of trying. They summoned the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to give evidence again on the issue.
The Council of Europe earlier named five countries that failed to explain what steps they were taking to protect people from being detained and mistreated through rendition.
Meanwhile, criticism continues from human rights and religious leaders in the U.S.
Prof. George Hunsinger, who teaches at Princeton University Theological Seminary and is organizing a National Religious Campaign Against Torture, told IPS, “Outsourcing torture to other regimes is the moral equivalent of practicing it ourselves. How did we enter into league with the world's most despicable torturers? Where is the outcry? What is happening to our country?”
Brian J. Foley, a professor at Florida Coastal School of Law, told IPS that rendition “is a symptom of the great illness afflicting our nation, secrecy.” He added, “We need more than just Amnesty International to shine light on these practices -- the American people must stand up and demand knowledge and accountability.”
Jo Guldi, a historian at the University of California at Berkeley, told IPS, “No threat is so great that we can afford to cannibalize the very democratic principles upon which our own freedoms turn.”
And Angelina Fisher, Arthur Helton Fellow at advocacy group Human Rights First, told IPS, “Failure by the United States to address the allegations of extraordinary rendition undermines the United States’ stated commitment to the Convention Against Torture and raises serious questions about the government’s respect for the principles of international cooperation.”
Fisher was one of the primary researchers and authors of a report on rendition issued by the Bar Association of the City of New York and Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the New York University School of Law.
It’s unclear – and intelligence experts say improbable – whether in the face of worldwide and persistent criticism, the U.S. has discontinued its rendition program. It has received far harsher criticism of its prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that facility remains very much open for business – and very much in the news.
Yet, given these kinds of policies, one has to wonder whether the Public Diplomacy job that President Bush gave his old Texas buddy, Karen Hughes, is do-able at all. Mr. Bush should know from his training as an MBA that professional marketing can do only so much to sell a flawed product.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
BUSH'S MIXED SIGNALS
By William Fisher
Last month, the U.S. Muslim World Advisory Committee of the United States Institute of Peace sat down for a talk with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes. These are the kinds of meetings Arab-American and other Muslim-American groups have been having throughout the country with U.S. officials at various levels of government since soon after 9/11.
These meetings usually end with oh-so-diplomatic remarks about the "full and frank exchanges of views" and praiseworthy statements from each about each.
Yet, though Arab-American and other Muslim organizations are reluctant to discuss the issue for the record, they tell me privately that they are worried that the Bush Administration is sending dangerously mixed signals precisely to those whose "hearts and minds" it claims to be trying to win.
Consider the following:
President Bush continues to assert that Arabs and other Muslims are valued and contributing members of American society. He denies that his Global War on Terrorism is a war against Islam. Secretary Rice and Ambassador Karen Hughes spend substantial time with Arab-American and other Muslim advocacy groups, reasserting their "mission" to reach out to these communities. The FBI, CIA, the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, and other U.S. government agencies spend millions to recruit members of these communities to apply for jobs, then deny them security clearances because they have relatives in the Middle East. Then Ms Hughes takes off on another of her "listening tours" of the Middle East, promising to reach out to "Muslim Moms".
At the same time, the FBI and the DHS continue to practice racial profiling and to harass and prosecute Arabs and other Muslims here at home. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces work with local law enforcement to snoop on Arab and Muslim communities and wiretap mosques. We tell the Arabs we don't want them running our ports. And legitimate Muslim charities can't raise a nickel without fear of being put on the government's "support for terrorists" list.
Which of these contradictory messages do you think resonates most loudly in the U.S.? Just take a look at the myriad of polls that measure the degree of pervasive insecurity among these constituencies at home, and attitudes of other Americans toward these minorities! The common denominator is fear, one of the other. And fear breeds intolerance and even violence.
Why should we care what Arab- and Muslim-Americans think and what we, their neighbors, think of them? For one thing, they're Americans. They live here, among us. They are business and labor leaders, clergymen, sports figures, engineers and mathematicians and physicists, teachers, doctors and nurses, ordinary working citizens, even members of Congress.
Secondly, their ties to family and friends in other countries can provide us with important bridges to understanding. They might just be capable of helping Karen Hughes to explain U.S. policies to parts of the world we desperately need on "our side". Or to better understand how the "other side" sees us.
Thirdly, Arab- and Muslim-Americans vote. And that, if nothing else, ought to capture the attention of our elected officials.
Finally, how our government acts toward these sizable minorities helps shape how the rest of us act.
Jingoism has no good consequences, for anyone.
No one ever said that balancing these competing interests would be easy. Terrorists in our midst must be identified and prosecuted. So must so-called charities that illegally use their organizations as fronts for laundering material support for those who would harm us and our allies.
At the same time, there is zero evidence that Arab- and Muslim-Americans are anything but loyal to our country, and just as horrified as the rest of us by the attacks of 9/11. Thousands of these hyphenated Americans are now serving in the U.S. armed forces, many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. And how many terror-related convictions resulted from the mass roundups of Arab and Muslim men in the weeks following 9/11? None.
Yet there appears to be no consistent effort anywhere in the upper reaches of the Bush Administration to engage these communities or to explain or coordinate what much seem to them as grossly contradictory and conflicting efforts.
Which should make us wonder whether this is about ideology: the "clash of civilizations? Or about creating smokescreens: blaming the media for not reporting all the "good news" from Iraq? Or about more of the unbelievably uncoordinated incompetence that gave us the Katrina disaster? Or about the political tone-deafness that resulted in Harriet Myers?
The short answer is "I don't know". Maybe a bit of all.
What I do know is that this is an issue on which George W. Bush has shown a somnambulistic failure of leadership. It is not enough for the president from time to time to tell Arab-Americans and other Muslim minorities - and the rest us - that he values our citizenship. It is not enough for him intermittently to reassure Muslims - and attempt to assure the rest of us -- that we are not at war with Islam.
At the very least, there needs to be high-level, visible, and transparent interest in worrying about the mixed signals we're sending. It can't be left to Karen Hughes alone. There is only one person who can get this done: the president.
So, Mr. Bush, here are two modest but doable suggestions:
First, you should appoint a permanent high-level advisory body to keep the administration informed about what Arab- and other Muslim-Americans are thinking, feeling, and doing about what they see as problems between their communities and government, and how other Americans see the same picture. This body should advise you about perceptions and misperceptions and how to address both with honesty and clarity. It should include thoughtful representatives of these communities, clergy of all faiths, private sector representatives, members of both political parties, and senior members of the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, and the FBI and CIA.
But without the machinery to act on its findings and recommendations, this will be just another of thousands of government advisory bodies. It needs teeth. Talented people who know how to do implementation.
So, Mr. President -- notwithstanding that government is historically a notoriously flunked communicator - you are surrounded by some very smart people and could have some of the world's most adept professional communicators at your service instantly. These experts should convince you to take Arab-American alienation very seriously and to mobilize whatever public and private sector resources you need to craft honest messages and make sure they get heard.
Without your leadership, these steps will be - and be seen to be -- little more than cosmetics. Only you can make them important. You need to reach out in a powerful and consistent way to explain to Arab-Americans and other Muslims - and their neighbors, all the rest of us -- the contributions made by these populations over many years. Instead, your silence will only metastasize the uninformed and unreasoning Islamophobia that is rapidly become implanted in our national genetics. And, at the same time, you need to tell the Arab- and Muslim-Americans, and our population at large why it's important for law enforcement to do what it does to protect us (hopefully, while reigning in their over-zealousness to prosecute).
This dialogue is partly about policy, but it is equally about better coordination within government, about better public-private partnerships, to actually carry out a sustained program of thoughtful, grown-up, no-spin communication.
There's a lot you can do about that. As long as you think it's important. And as long as you're prepared to listen.
Last month, the U.S. Muslim World Advisory Committee of the United States Institute of Peace sat down for a talk with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes. These are the kinds of meetings Arab-American and other Muslim-American groups have been having throughout the country with U.S. officials at various levels of government since soon after 9/11.
These meetings usually end with oh-so-diplomatic remarks about the "full and frank exchanges of views" and praiseworthy statements from each about each.
Yet, though Arab-American and other Muslim organizations are reluctant to discuss the issue for the record, they tell me privately that they are worried that the Bush Administration is sending dangerously mixed signals precisely to those whose "hearts and minds" it claims to be trying to win.
Consider the following:
President Bush continues to assert that Arabs and other Muslims are valued and contributing members of American society. He denies that his Global War on Terrorism is a war against Islam. Secretary Rice and Ambassador Karen Hughes spend substantial time with Arab-American and other Muslim advocacy groups, reasserting their "mission" to reach out to these communities. The FBI, CIA, the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, State, and other U.S. government agencies spend millions to recruit members of these communities to apply for jobs, then deny them security clearances because they have relatives in the Middle East. Then Ms Hughes takes off on another of her "listening tours" of the Middle East, promising to reach out to "Muslim Moms".
At the same time, the FBI and the DHS continue to practice racial profiling and to harass and prosecute Arabs and other Muslims here at home. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces work with local law enforcement to snoop on Arab and Muslim communities and wiretap mosques. We tell the Arabs we don't want them running our ports. And legitimate Muslim charities can't raise a nickel without fear of being put on the government's "support for terrorists" list.
Which of these contradictory messages do you think resonates most loudly in the U.S.? Just take a look at the myriad of polls that measure the degree of pervasive insecurity among these constituencies at home, and attitudes of other Americans toward these minorities! The common denominator is fear, one of the other. And fear breeds intolerance and even violence.
Why should we care what Arab- and Muslim-Americans think and what we, their neighbors, think of them? For one thing, they're Americans. They live here, among us. They are business and labor leaders, clergymen, sports figures, engineers and mathematicians and physicists, teachers, doctors and nurses, ordinary working citizens, even members of Congress.
Secondly, their ties to family and friends in other countries can provide us with important bridges to understanding. They might just be capable of helping Karen Hughes to explain U.S. policies to parts of the world we desperately need on "our side". Or to better understand how the "other side" sees us.
Thirdly, Arab- and Muslim-Americans vote. And that, if nothing else, ought to capture the attention of our elected officials.
Finally, how our government acts toward these sizable minorities helps shape how the rest of us act.
Jingoism has no good consequences, for anyone.
No one ever said that balancing these competing interests would be easy. Terrorists in our midst must be identified and prosecuted. So must so-called charities that illegally use their organizations as fronts for laundering material support for those who would harm us and our allies.
At the same time, there is zero evidence that Arab- and Muslim-Americans are anything but loyal to our country, and just as horrified as the rest of us by the attacks of 9/11. Thousands of these hyphenated Americans are now serving in the U.S. armed forces, many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan. And how many terror-related convictions resulted from the mass roundups of Arab and Muslim men in the weeks following 9/11? None.
Yet there appears to be no consistent effort anywhere in the upper reaches of the Bush Administration to engage these communities or to explain or coordinate what much seem to them as grossly contradictory and conflicting efforts.
Which should make us wonder whether this is about ideology: the "clash of civilizations? Or about creating smokescreens: blaming the media for not reporting all the "good news" from Iraq? Or about more of the unbelievably uncoordinated incompetence that gave us the Katrina disaster? Or about the political tone-deafness that resulted in Harriet Myers?
The short answer is "I don't know". Maybe a bit of all.
What I do know is that this is an issue on which George W. Bush has shown a somnambulistic failure of leadership. It is not enough for the president from time to time to tell Arab-Americans and other Muslim minorities - and the rest us - that he values our citizenship. It is not enough for him intermittently to reassure Muslims - and attempt to assure the rest of us -- that we are not at war with Islam.
At the very least, there needs to be high-level, visible, and transparent interest in worrying about the mixed signals we're sending. It can't be left to Karen Hughes alone. There is only one person who can get this done: the president.
So, Mr. Bush, here are two modest but doable suggestions:
First, you should appoint a permanent high-level advisory body to keep the administration informed about what Arab- and other Muslim-Americans are thinking, feeling, and doing about what they see as problems between their communities and government, and how other Americans see the same picture. This body should advise you about perceptions and misperceptions and how to address both with honesty and clarity. It should include thoughtful representatives of these communities, clergy of all faiths, private sector representatives, members of both political parties, and senior members of the Departments of State, Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, and the FBI and CIA.
But without the machinery to act on its findings and recommendations, this will be just another of thousands of government advisory bodies. It needs teeth. Talented people who know how to do implementation.
So, Mr. President -- notwithstanding that government is historically a notoriously flunked communicator - you are surrounded by some very smart people and could have some of the world's most adept professional communicators at your service instantly. These experts should convince you to take Arab-American alienation very seriously and to mobilize whatever public and private sector resources you need to craft honest messages and make sure they get heard.
Without your leadership, these steps will be - and be seen to be -- little more than cosmetics. Only you can make them important. You need to reach out in a powerful and consistent way to explain to Arab-Americans and other Muslims - and their neighbors, all the rest of us -- the contributions made by these populations over many years. Instead, your silence will only metastasize the uninformed and unreasoning Islamophobia that is rapidly become implanted in our national genetics. And, at the same time, you need to tell the Arab- and Muslim-Americans, and our population at large why it's important for law enforcement to do what it does to protect us (hopefully, while reigning in their over-zealousness to prosecute).
This dialogue is partly about policy, but it is equally about better coordination within government, about better public-private partnerships, to actually carry out a sustained program of thoughtful, grown-up, no-spin communication.
There's a lot you can do about that. As long as you think it's important. And as long as you're prepared to listen.
AND THIS GUY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT?
By William Fisher
This week, we got yet another pitiful lesson in just how craven wanabee presidential hopefuls will be in pandering to their “base” – and how little some of them understand about how to wage and win the “Global War on Terror”.
The lesson came from Senator George Allen, the former Republican governor of Virginia, who is widely reported to be seeking his party’s nomination for president in 2008.
Senator Allen wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to recommend 3-star general Jerry Boykin to be the new head of the Army’s Special Operations command.
For those of you with political amnesia, this is the same Jerry Boykin who appeared in dozens of Christian evangelical churches – often in uniform – to deliver himself of such utterances as:
About his battle with a Somali (Muslim) warlord: “I knew that my God was bigger than his God. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”
About the Global War on Terror: “America’s enemy is “a spiritual enemy ... called Satan.” The enemy will only be defeated, he added, “if we come against them in the name of Jesus…We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this… The enemy will only be defeated, he added, “if we come against them in the name of Jesus…We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this."
About radical Muslims: “Why do they hate us so much? …The answer to that is because we're a Christian nation."
About President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
Boykin’s incendiary remarks drew predictable praise from Christianity’s loony fringe -- the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson.
And his introduction of Crusader 101 language into the GWOT in 2002 and 2003 brought equally predictable outcries from the Muslim-American and Arab-American communities, as well as from a ton of more moderate Christian leaders and human rights advocacy groups.
So, when the Pentagon finally caved and opened an investigation, it gave Gen. Boykin a sharp slap on the wrist. It found that he violated regulations by failing to make clear he was not speaking in an official capacity when he made the speeches, sometimes wearing his Army uniform, and that Boykin violated Pentagon rules by failing to obtain advance clearance for his remarks.
The reprimand had dire consequences. Boykin is still the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary for intelligence.
Not to worry. After all, George Allen wants to be president.
So he wrote to Rumsfeld, “I am told, and I believe it to be true, that no special operations officer currently on active duty is more highly respected or admired by his superiors, peers or subordinates alike, than Jerry Boykin."
Allen’s letter said his confidence in Boykin's abilities overrides any
concerns about what may surface during confirmation hearings should the
administration nominate Boykin. Specifically, Allen mentioned the religious
statements as well as U.S. interrogation policies at the Guantanamo Bay prison, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and elsewhere.
"Granted, these are issues which (sic) cause discomfort. But I firmly believe the nomination of General Boykin to be important enough to take a stand," Allen wrote. The current commander of Special Operations, Army Gen. Bryan "Doug" Brown, is retiring.
The first term senator said his request to nominate Boykin had the support of "many of my colleagues here in the Senate" and those who have served with Boykin, given the general's extensive special operations resume, which includes the Army's Delta Force and service in the Somalia conflict.”
No doubt, though he didn’t name any of Boykin’s other supporters.
But, to his credit, one far more powerful Senate voice demurred. Virginia Sen. John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee (of which Sen. Allen is not a member) said in a statement to the AP, "Senator Allen is entitled to his views. He did not consult with me on this matter, but this officer would not be among those whom I would recommend for this position."
Good for him!
But there is a much larger point here. Even if we forget what Gen. Boykin believes, the Muslim world will not. They remember Abu Ghraib. And they remember, as reported by the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, that the prison abuse scandal grew out of a decision to give greater influence to the Defense Intelligence unit, led by Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence -- and his deputy, guess who? Lt. General William G. “Jerry” Boykin.
They know all about the CIA’s private airline carrying out U.S. kidnappings of suspected terrorists and their “extreme renditions” to black hole prisons in Eastern Europe, and to such pillars of democracy as Egypt, Syria and a host of other hospitable venues.
They know all about the “diplomatic assurances” the U.S. gets from these countries, which routinely vow not to torture or abuse those we deliver into their gentle hands.
They know about Guantanamo Bay. They know about Bagram. They know about our then attorney general, John Ashcroft, rounding up anyone who looked like “a Middle Easterner” after the 9/11 attacks, convicting no one of any terror-related crime, but deporting many.
How do we know they know? We know because they tell us. In no uncertain terms.
Every time our hear-and-see-no-evil Secretary of State stilettos her way abroad, she gets an earful about precisely these issues. And when her sidekick, our newest public diplomacy maven, Karen Hughes, sets off on another of her tone-deaf “listening tours” of the Middle East to bond with “Muslim Moms”, what she hears is America is at war with Islam.
Even if she were qualified in public diplomacy, she has taken on an impossible job. The president has tasked her to persuade Arabs and other Muslims that he really means it when he describes them as people of peace and understands that Al-Qaida isn’t Islam.
But be not dis-encouraged. Stay the course. Mmes. Rice and Hughes will eventually be victorious in their long war because they’ll have the enthusiastic support of folks like George Allen – and Jerry Boykin.
This week, we got yet another pitiful lesson in just how craven wanabee presidential hopefuls will be in pandering to their “base” – and how little some of them understand about how to wage and win the “Global War on Terror”.
The lesson came from Senator George Allen, the former Republican governor of Virginia, who is widely reported to be seeking his party’s nomination for president in 2008.
Senator Allen wrote to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to recommend 3-star general Jerry Boykin to be the new head of the Army’s Special Operations command.
For those of you with political amnesia, this is the same Jerry Boykin who appeared in dozens of Christian evangelical churches – often in uniform – to deliver himself of such utterances as:
About his battle with a Somali (Muslim) warlord: “I knew that my God was bigger than his God. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”
About the Global War on Terror: “America’s enemy is “a spiritual enemy ... called Satan.” The enemy will only be defeated, he added, “if we come against them in the name of Jesus…We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this… The enemy will only be defeated, he added, “if we come against them in the name of Jesus…We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this."
About radical Muslims: “Why do they hate us so much? …The answer to that is because we're a Christian nation."
About President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."
Boykin’s incendiary remarks drew predictable praise from Christianity’s loony fringe -- the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson.
And his introduction of Crusader 101 language into the GWOT in 2002 and 2003 brought equally predictable outcries from the Muslim-American and Arab-American communities, as well as from a ton of more moderate Christian leaders and human rights advocacy groups.
So, when the Pentagon finally caved and opened an investigation, it gave Gen. Boykin a sharp slap on the wrist. It found that he violated regulations by failing to make clear he was not speaking in an official capacity when he made the speeches, sometimes wearing his Army uniform, and that Boykin violated Pentagon rules by failing to obtain advance clearance for his remarks.
The reprimand had dire consequences. Boykin is still the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary for intelligence.
Not to worry. After all, George Allen wants to be president.
So he wrote to Rumsfeld, “I am told, and I believe it to be true, that no special operations officer currently on active duty is more highly respected or admired by his superiors, peers or subordinates alike, than Jerry Boykin."
Allen’s letter said his confidence in Boykin's abilities overrides any
concerns about what may surface during confirmation hearings should the
administration nominate Boykin. Specifically, Allen mentioned the religious
statements as well as U.S. interrogation policies at the Guantanamo Bay prison, Abu Ghraib in Iraq and elsewhere.
"Granted, these are issues which (sic) cause discomfort. But I firmly believe the nomination of General Boykin to be important enough to take a stand," Allen wrote. The current commander of Special Operations, Army Gen. Bryan "Doug" Brown, is retiring.
The first term senator said his request to nominate Boykin had the support of "many of my colleagues here in the Senate" and those who have served with Boykin, given the general's extensive special operations resume, which includes the Army's Delta Force and service in the Somalia conflict.”
No doubt, though he didn’t name any of Boykin’s other supporters.
But, to his credit, one far more powerful Senate voice demurred. Virginia Sen. John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee (of which Sen. Allen is not a member) said in a statement to the AP, "Senator Allen is entitled to his views. He did not consult with me on this matter, but this officer would not be among those whom I would recommend for this position."
Good for him!
But there is a much larger point here. Even if we forget what Gen. Boykin believes, the Muslim world will not. They remember Abu Ghraib. And they remember, as reported by the New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, that the prison abuse scandal grew out of a decision to give greater influence to the Defense Intelligence unit, led by Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence -- and his deputy, guess who? Lt. General William G. “Jerry” Boykin.
They know all about the CIA’s private airline carrying out U.S. kidnappings of suspected terrorists and their “extreme renditions” to black hole prisons in Eastern Europe, and to such pillars of democracy as Egypt, Syria and a host of other hospitable venues.
They know all about the “diplomatic assurances” the U.S. gets from these countries, which routinely vow not to torture or abuse those we deliver into their gentle hands.
They know about Guantanamo Bay. They know about Bagram. They know about our then attorney general, John Ashcroft, rounding up anyone who looked like “a Middle Easterner” after the 9/11 attacks, convicting no one of any terror-related crime, but deporting many.
How do we know they know? We know because they tell us. In no uncertain terms.
Every time our hear-and-see-no-evil Secretary of State stilettos her way abroad, she gets an earful about precisely these issues. And when her sidekick, our newest public diplomacy maven, Karen Hughes, sets off on another of her tone-deaf “listening tours” of the Middle East to bond with “Muslim Moms”, what she hears is America is at war with Islam.
Even if she were qualified in public diplomacy, she has taken on an impossible job. The president has tasked her to persuade Arabs and other Muslims that he really means it when he describes them as people of peace and understands that Al-Qaida isn’t Islam.
But be not dis-encouraged. Stay the course. Mmes. Rice and Hughes will eventually be victorious in their long war because they’ll have the enthusiastic support of folks like George Allen – and Jerry Boykin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
