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