..out of the dark

I'm not going to discuss the "real" views in the White House, any ulterior motives, or the merit of the theory suggested here this time. Nor specifics that disprove the practicalities decisively. But it's necessary to keep one thing in mind at all times. The way the politics work here, among the "serious" and "responsible", is through a clearly defined dualistic world- view: on the philosophical level (for a lack of a better phrase) there is a battle being fought between good and evil. Or more to the point - between bad and less bad. One side wants to destroy the world and kill puppies for entertainment. The other wants to bring freedom and democracy, or at least increased living standards and opportunity, to all.

This is of course the standard political crap, and can be dismissed out of hand as insignificant. This is not what guides any actions taken, and has no time- scale.

On the other side, on the strategic level, the view (as held by this administration) is similarly split between two sides - one defined by the Washington establishment - and on the other the reformists and visionaries. There's obviously some overlap on the technicalities and the solutions, but we're not dealing with that aspect in this essay. Because the core of the political views, and the way this resonates with the general public, is the critical component for understanding how Bush could possibly win two elections in a row, and not be carried out of the White House tied to a hurdle at any time during his presidency.

Because what is Cheney really saying? He's saying that he, Bush, and the core of "heroes" in the White House is resisting the realpolitical concerns that "forced" the US to withdraw towards the end of the Cold War. He's casting back towards the end of the Reagan presidency, when Reagan stood in solidarity with the "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua, or the "rebels" in Afghanistan, or the Shah's men in Iran.. while the public and the Congress were pining for an end to the endless escalation of conflict and lawlessness surrounding the black ops at that time. Which were all argued - as forcefully then, as now - to be essential to national security. And they were considered so important that it was necessary to circumvent Congress in order to pursue these operations (ref. Oliver North and testimony to Congress about Nicaragua and the Shah of Iran, or the Contra scandal).

The Vice President then proclaims that this "abandonment" of the Afghani people caused a disaster like 9/11. You may question the direct causation between the events - but it is no joke as far as a policy- matter. The US is a force of good (or less bad), and should intervene in order to ensure their interests - for the good of all (or at least some). It's also the remaining superpower, and can therefore shape the world. And then after that, look at the changes, and influence again to this particular vision - a consideration unlikely to be entertained in Reagan's mind until perhaps towards the end. Even though of course his policy advisors at the time would gleefully and publically suggest that this should be the ultimate end to the Cold War - not just defeat of the Soviet, but supremacy of the US. Through soft power, or hard power. Something which, of course, has been held as a perfectly acceptable view to a lesser or greater degree in every administration since then.

The way this view differs, and battles the mythical establishment views, is simply where it's necessary to intervene. The establishment view, as seen by the Bush- administration type of folks, is that the US should only intervene when it is in their direct interests. For example, realpolitical concerns forced (or so they say) the US to not knock off Saddam during Desert Storm. And the same would force the US to withdraw from Vietnam, or from Afghanistan. Whether it would be interests at home, or conditions abroad - those would be in the same category.

Because they all amount to caving to the short- term concerns of policy, and therefore shatter the over- arching legacy being crafted by "hard and tough" decisions.

In the right circles, this is not something spoken of with derision, but with pride. They invoke Truman and the Korean war, much more forcefully and clearly than when the president would echo them at one point. They invoke Saint Reagan and his battle against oppression in the face of public pressure to slow down. His war in Panama was proof of his greatness and commitment to the vision. They dream up narratives about the ominous enemies that seek to destroy them, be it Russia, China, Muslims or blacks, or whatever - who must be fought, in situations where staying the course is the only thing that can truly be a courageous decision.

Because to admit defeat is not merely a consideration of facts and reasonable outcomes, it's committing the United States to purposeful defeat and decline. Truly, as the new conservative movement - the idea cannot fail, it can only be failed. As I mentioned, the view of success is fundamentally the same: to shape the outcome by involvement - without which the world will decline.

That, then, is the difference between the classic establishment views and the Bush- administration. Ironically, they're using the same means, the same tired excuses, and the same failed methods as their counterparts. As well as have the same blue- eyed view of american power as the "realists" in their day. Before they retired and wrote books about how gloriously rational they were, when they served - and how much they resisted the evil temptations that comes with the divine power given to them when elected. But nevertheless - this view of history and of US superpower - this powerful myth - is necessary to understand in order to grasp how we have ended up where we are. With a US that has no use for international treaties - not even as a pretense to please public opinion. And where serious commitment to using force at a large scale is considered warranted. Even pre- emptively, against a country that is no real threat, neither at the present or the future in a traditional sense.

Because as Cheney says: they truly believe that an enemy is out to destroy them. That must be so. Whether it is because of envy, or because of genuine wish to destroy all good. And I have no doubt that the rationalisations at play involve a chain that suggests it's already proven that countries and borders are insignificant at this point - and therefore should by necessity give the US the right to defend itself wherever it chooses.

And so smoothing over the worst excesses becomes merely a PR job. While shaping the idea of eradicating evil by force as a necessity for national security becomes a practical solution. A simple operational concern that must be involved. The public, after all, what do they know of the burdens related to being in high office.

Nevertheless - the idea of a strong power leading the world to enlightenment and peace is what the Bush- presidency, and any other presidency, sells itself on.

For example the Obama campaign has been clear on their views - when they don't manage to drop the worst references to the right of US intervention, and their "re- eastablishment of US standing in the world", they of course explain the role of US strength.

And why would that be necessary, for a campaign that runs, and is probably going to win, as an anti- Bush candidate? It's again because it caters to the fundamental views held about US power and role in the world. True - President Obama will be less likely to throw silly things like the constitution and any treaties to the wind, I suppose - but the view is the same: The unimpeded use of American might is a necessity in an uncertain world.

It currently goes by the euphemism: "being strong on defense". Take notice of it, and marvel at the lack of lessons being learned - as well as the kind of courage a public figure would have, in order to seriously argue differently.

Case in point - Noam Chomsky: