[written weekend B4 Benedict North deceived the gullible in 1987]
It seems rather a poignant coincidence that in this bicentennial year of the foundation of our self - government the Constitution, which "frames the body of law" by which we live, there should occur an internal conflict so fundamental as to seem "ready - made" for public pedagogy (education). The conflict from which I presume we will learn is, of course made manifest in the Iranian arms/Contra funding deception.
The fundamental issue raised is "Who controls Foreign Policy?". Historical and Law experts can make elegant arguments of an esoteric nature beyond my and most citizen's comprehension. From my background of some scientific training and general curiosity fed by growing up in the "marble city" suburbs, I propose the following "thumbnail analysis" may approximate the truth.
The "operating assumption" subsumed in the constitution is that the nation is usually at peace! For the militarily second rate, geographically isolated country we were through most of our first three quarters of history, this assumption held true. Under such a condition, the "classical" roles assigned to the tri-partite branches can be followed. The Legislature "legislates" the laws, which are faithfully "executed" (implemented) by the Executive (any internal legal conflicts being "adjudicated" by the Judicature). Now, from the beginning, in actual practice - because language is a reflection of human thought (less precise than pure mathematics as well as more richly expressive), and the conduct of human affairs in no way approaches an exact science, cooperation between the congress and president has been an essential feature for responsible governance. The authority to negotiate treaties vested in the executive is the most powerful express foreign policy duty the constitution leaves to that branch under all circumstance (reviewed, after the fact through congressional approval).
The extra - ordinary condition under which the government may operate is that engendered by War. If and when the Congress declares a state of war to exist, the chief executive then exercises the powers of Commander - in - chief of the armed forces. Traditionally such a condition has meant great commitment of national resources to the goal of a successful conclusion. Therefore, by default, a much greater burden of power and responsibility then rests with the executive branch (with & through the military authorities).
The new factor which could not be foreseen to impact on this natural flow of foreign policy dominance is the extension of military capabilities to the point where their very use would insure the extinction of our species. The pattern of warfare as the "ultimate tool of diplomacy" is so ingrained into society after tens of thousands of years of practice, that this sudden quantum leap in firepower (and radiation contamination) constitutes the greatest challenge to mankind's ability to logically integrate scientific developments (i.e. to avoid the obvious species-cide "standard" implementation would yield).
The age - old pattern of recovery, rebuild and preparation for the next major war has thus been interrupted. If Oppenheimer & associates hadn't brought forth the weapon which measures it's energy release in order of magnitudes where one squares the speed of light (a quantity beyond the comprehension of our every day experience = Seven times around the Earth in one second) - the pattern of history suggests we would have engaged "World War III" long before now. However, "Oppy's" success (which inspired him to quote Indian scripture on SHIVA - the "Destroyer of Worlds" - & which prompted Einstein's second letter to Washington urging it never be used against humans) did not remove the natural conflict & turmoil which tends to build until resolved, traditionally by full scale war. The result has been that the world has entered a novel state of existence. While not maintaining a stable peace, nor resolving mounting international tension through any decisive means (war), the "powers that be" have entered into what a physicist might call a meta - stable state, precariously balanced off against each other, but very close to degeneration towards all out war if a small amount of force presses one side over their "tensile limit" (measured, nationally by such factors as "isolated group leadership", perceived "pride" and philosophic principles). This state has been dubbed the Cold War. <...& more recent usage implements the gravitational analogy of the "tipping point"."
Internationally, or from the point of view considering survival of our species, this state of affairs arises from the oxymoron of Nuclear level Weapons possessed by completely sovereign states on the same planet. As of this writing, "we" have been lucky for forty - two years. The probability can not be too high that the same would ensue over another 42, under similar circumstances. Given that the means for traditional conquest are suicidal and that neither major protagonist is likely to surrender their (philosophic) struggle unilaterally, the general direction towards survival appears to be one of rough co-existence (heretofore poorly implemented - with breakdowns into "conflicts" periodically); however, requiring greater effort and success along the avenue of peaceful competition utilizing trade and wide spread Debate to achieve gradual co-evolution of the systems. This process has, in fact been underway to varying degrees since 1917, when the first major experiment in Socialist government was begun. Since that point, an amalgam of features from both the pure "free market" and "planned production" extremes have constituted the operating systems to different extents. We have, however at least partly learned what works best from each other, and given time as well as a greater exchange of people & ideas we may certainly develop along parallel paths. This is not a short term prospect, nor even a prediction of any particular destination; it is rather, a conviction that the societies must open up to each other in a manner quite unlike traditional adversaries in traditional (non nuclear) times, if any traditions of any culture are to survive……….
No point of principle need be given up. The crux of the matter is that since our battlefield weapons are too awesome to use, we must shift the arena from our fragile eco-sphere to the proper sphere of human conflict, the limitless environs of the battle of ideas - honest, unfettered DEBATE!
This may sound like a hackneyed time worn concept; however, conditions may for the first time ever actually be conducive to this approach. Mr. Gorbachev's glasnost ideal could help forge a truly open dialogue between "enemies" half a world away through easily accessible communication channels (T.V. and Radio).
Hopes for the future aside, the reality of the world's cold war metastable state means that our country is neither "at war" nor, truly is it "at peace". We are caught in some murky in between condition never envisaged by the men who framed the functioning of our democracy. This, I contend is the most fundamental challenge to our "charter" which could not anticipate this "high tech Catch - 22" leading to stalemate between the executive and congress in the vital area of foreign policy.
Our recent history documents that a president can view any world development as an inherent "threat to national security" and exercise his emergency authority to activate our armed forces, whether a majority of congress and/or the public agrees or not! (He can even "manufacture" a mountain out of a mole hill to rearrange the news headlines - like invading Grenada to coverup marine casualties or perhaps Kuwaiti tanker issues to cover Iran/Contra scandals) <The real tail wagging the dog.>. The "War Powers" act of congress is testament to earlier, more costly "conflicts" in this extended tension atmosphere and demonstrates the essentially unresolved boundaries of power/responsibility between the two branches under the new "condition" of quasi-war/peace. Short of a re-constitu(te)-tional convention, the operating principle to be followed, as amply demonstrated by the Viet Nam experience should be to align the policy with a majority of the governed people and therefore to seek cooperation between president and congress in order to produce a consistent, coherent policy.
This comprehension of the requirement for a chief executive to make a sufficiently convincing case to the public for it's foreign policy seems to be where the current administration has failed in it's duty.
When Ronald Reagan (rr) first took office there was little concern needed to keep foreign policy aligned generally with american public opinion. A familiar face from T.V./movies claiming to know that all the answers to the world's problems were as straight forward as a 3 X 5 card analysis seemed simple relief from the complex "failed" (Khomeini-ized) predecessor who had allowed the nation to suffer indignation rather than give up the lives of 50 hostages. The public was so relieved to be "moving ahead" (or moving anywhere for a change) that they seemed not to notice or care that the aid to Salvador's military was resumed the very same day the hostages came home (Inauguration Day, when a former U.S. President was snubbed out of his former residence by the new "class "C" model"). This was the un-repenitant "Death Squad" regime under command of such as señor D'Abbuison whose funding had been cut off soon after rr's election when the "Four Nuns" were raped & killed for the ""crime"" of "helping the poor" (as a national guard declared). It would take two years and 30,000 dead before american pressure helped install Mr. Duarte; who, being a good man could do much more good, if we encouraged the Oligarchical minority to put the Army under his control in parallel to our democracy (as the original Mr. Monroe would prefer, I'm sure).
It was at this point in the development of rr's central american policy that a deception began. The contra forces (with various forms of U.S. assistance) were employed to help "interdict arms" flowing into the Salvadoran rebel forces. The stated policy was merely a cover for the true purpose of "pressuring" the Sandinistas into Capitalist Democracy. The fact that this deception occurred demonstrated that the administration was either too incompetent or too arrogant to incorporate the "support of the people" factor into their thinking.
<In retrospective fact, the corruption/treason had already been implemented by rr's slime-ball Casey, who cut a deal with Khomeini to keep the hostages hostage until their coup was secured, one found by reading the Walsh report, not that the media claimed to, being GOP tarts.>
-----A COLD WAR AXIOM?-----
"If a POLICY cannot be defended before the American People adequately (or select representatives of same if classified facts are really required), there may well come a time when those constituents will not support the Government adequately to fulfill those policy objectives!" ----For, in the final analysis, as long as this is a free will democracy supporting a free press, even if slick P.R. relations fool "most of the people most of the time", eventually the truth will air! A most germane case in point is contained in subsequent developments.
The American public had "bought" the Salvadorean interdiction concept and believed that purpose worthy of support. A large fraction, however still recall the human price paid in Viet Nam on a losing effort. They would refuse to support a "re-run" of that debacle starring the contra forces (later to be joined by a "supporting cast" of American G.I.'s??) if, as it turned out in 'Nam, we were on the side of a small minority which could not command indigenous support from their countrymen. This as reflected by the congress was the reason for/test of the Boland amendment process. If, left to fend on their own, in their own country, they could survive, prosper and command the support/help of their nation's people, they would be seen as legitimate "freedom fighters". On the other hand; if their "hometown" reputation was more like Death Squad leftovers from Somoza's National Guard "gestapo", no support would be had, or given to re-prop a regime more oppressive than the communist leaning Sandinistas. As is now known, the rr group didn't trust in the contras local reputation and, flaunting the will of the American people (as expressed through their congress) circumvented this "test of support" by supplying the contras via allies ("cut-outs" as the agency describes such) and Khomeini regime arms sales. [Also thru narcotics sales via Dewey Clairidge/John Hull as documented in Senator John Kerry's subcommittee report implicating North's notebooks, and Leslie Cockburn's book on rr/bush foreign policy, Out of Control]
Another factor behind the Boland amendments was concerned not just with the feasibility of the stated policy, but with the logic and morality underlying it. To any student of George Orwell's 1984 treatise on "institutionalized war based economies" the rr policy on Nicaragua seems like a possible candidate for fulfilling part of his conjectured fear. Though it is true that the Sandinistas initial reactionary mood after (how many ?) decades of U.S. backed dictatorship gave Carter little return for his proffered "carrots" of aid, logic insists that had he been able to maintain at least a balanced policy (some carrot, some stick) the government would be less allied with the Soviets than it is today. The "hard liners" under Ortega have been helped immeasurably in justifying repression while the rr administration contras commit five times the atrocities that the Nicaraguan forces do (according to Amnesty International). The reluctance of rr to engage seriously in the peacemaking Contadora process (as judged by the participants) and the overkill of so many "training exercises" in the region give rise to concerns that another facet of Orwell's analysis may, at least in part be at work. The product of a Defense based economy/recovery is of course, arms. In Orwell's nightmare the dominant powers kept a few little "trouble spots" brewing (mini-wars) just so the economic "miracle" would continue. I claim not the right to judge any man's motives, but a simple mind <alzheimic as it turned out> employed by a "particular interest" could be easily used by a self perpetuating entity like (what did Eisenhower call them/it?) the Military-Industrial Complex. Notwithstanding the truth of my accusations, I aim my loyal opposition constructive criticism more at the momentum of a profitable system than at any individual's personal guilt. However, as a dedicated promoter of Humane Free Will Democracy I can't help but point out the perversion of Monroe's Doctrine over the years when certain domestic "concerns" (like the U.S. Fruit Co.) held more sway in our policy decisions than the majority's (the people) in the countries that doctrine was supposed to protect, not economically repress. This hypocrisy and abandonment of our nations honorable tradition by so-called conserve-ative administrations after John Kennedy's O.A.S. progressive impetus was "iced", has "fertilized" Latin America for alternative options of allegiance. One notes this development 15 years after Pinochet was installed to make Chile "safe for democracy". [nixon's interpretation of "democracy"] <JFK's "Alianza para Progresso" = Alliance for Progress>
Near conclusion, let me state the most fundamental shortcoming of the rr administration philosophy (for which many may take blame and credit, and which reflects the "thinking" of many millions). Mr. reagan seems to embody a consensus of thought which tends to conceive of the world as a relatively simple and essentially pre-nuclear world. Being one who tries not to be so arrogant as to lose all hope in providence, I see this administration as a chance for those who have their "heart in the right place" to learn, (to grow along with it), that the "simple answers" to "simple analysis" truthfully does not work in the long run, in the real run (for theTRUTH of a complex world). However, my faith is strained when I see "an old dog" who doesn't learn very quickly new perceptions, but imagines that he can avoid the difficult realities of the middle east (avoid being "Khomeini-ized") by bartering hostages for arms. This is where rr's faith in public image over truly substantial progress fails most dramatically. The scheme to avoid the "helpless" image Carter was saddled with in dealing w/Shiite radicals over hostages partially worked (at least some were released) right up to (re-)election day! However, the effort fell short (perhaps the hundred or more indicted administration officials "sleaze factor" contributed to the voter's attitude), the senate control was lost, and any benefit was doomed to be short-lived and reversed w/interest upon exposure.
This debacle points up the problem with simplistic jingo-istic approaches to our modern world. The Carter administration, for all it's own problems did accomplish a lasting peace with half of Israel's neighbors through the Camp David peace process in three years. The rr peace efforts have accomplished next to nothing in over twice the time! But who notices? Taking a cue from "T.V." values, "we" endorse a "mop-up" operation through Southern Lebanon ("action" sells more dramatically than peace) which brought a new role to the holocaust victims, starring Sharon as the Himmler of Sabra/Shateeya death camp massacres. The rr team have quite a habit of "taking credit where NONE is due", as in the crime rate drop which merely has followed the demographic dip in "crime age" population (roughly 15 to 30) as the "baby gap" generation has arrived. Responsibility on the other hand, tends to be given away along with a pink slip. This administration must be setting a record for the number of National Security Advisors since there's been a different one every year. Harry Truman set an honest standard on where the blame should lie for executive branch actions. One tends to wonder with reagan if "the buck stops...in the bank!" This maneuver of "Government by Fall Guy" is cowardly and underscores the soft - underbelly of strategic "thinking" on the simple - minded right which, for instance dreams of separating cause from effect in terrorism. The Iran/Contra subversion of law seems a sad replay of mistaken loyalty to an imperial acting individual (reagan in spirit, perhaps someone else "on the record" = writing the cue cards) rather than to the Constitution and government of the people where it must lie, for a nation of LAWS (which are "no respecter of persons").
Another disappointing area has been in arms control and generally, the East - West relationship. The "commander in chief" who claimed to take two years to comprehend that most of the S.U.'s missiles were land based has succeeded in drawing out negotiations over an entire two terms to justify soaking the American treasury, present and future to fund the most obscene boondoggle military procurement glut in history. To tout one's stage managed progress as the possible "first actual reduction" of arms achieved via such treaties is pure sophism. Given the level of competence, one might be suckered into believing that they really don't know that on a parabola of build up and turn around of arms levels, one must first slow down the rate of increase before heading in the opposite direction, given a constant countervailing momentum of effort. What's left un-said is that under Carter or Mondale progress would have come sooner, and cheaper (though with less pork for "defense" stocks and fewer death industry millionaires). The current regime's claim is that the "tough stance" brought the soviets to negotiations. The truth is, Brezhnev's death removed an ossified, obsolete "non-leader" from the picture (stroke victim, in fact) finally allowing a post WWII thinker to create possibilities for progress. The danger is, that the world (and the west, particularly) may lose the chance for substantial reduction of tension through breaking down the walls of communication, because of the western leader being chained to obsolete and sometimes deceptive ideas of "Defence".
The man who started his presidency discussing "limited nuclear war" appears ignorant of how un-like any modern engagement would be to WWII movies. Given that modern nuclear devices pack the punch of the Hiroshima blast times 2,500, it should be obvious that true "defence of the species" requires more effort on communication and less on instruments of annihilation!!!
The most obscene and dangerous aspect however, concerns the deception of a space "shield". I certainly acknowledge that high tech development must keep pace with soviet armaments. To maintain, however, that any but a small number of missiles could be guaranteed destroyed (for malfunction/terrorist insurance perhaps) engages in the most irresponsible speculation, given a competent adversary, when only 0.1% failure (one {1} missed in 1,000) means the 15 largest population centers are obliterated. An informed person who advocates this most unholy "hole - y" shield seems to be attempting a transplant of the "defence golden goose" into space development to avoid the (short term) "unprofitable" aspect of major arms reductions, but at too high a risk, too high a risk.
Herewith are a few "words of wisdom" from men who understood how insane is today's war "game".....
................................from John F. Kennedy......
"You know it really is an intolerable state of affairs when nations can threaten each other with nuclear weapons. This is just so totally irrational. A world in which there are large quantities of nuclear weapons is an impossible world to handle".
.................................and from a man with first hand experience, Five Star General and ..................................President Dwight D. Eisenhower...........
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...........This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Returning to the foreign policy direction and control under our "cold war" reality. The cooperation required these days should certainly lean toward Congressional Leadership by any responsible government, given that the public has now voted both houses of congress to the Democrats and in honest light of the fact that had "Iran/contra" broken 10 days earlier, there would likely be only 10 Republican senators left!!! A patriot can only hope that his countrymen will make the effort to understand that in a world where our economy is folded into Japan's & West Europe's intimately, where even "battlefield" nuclear weapons may be able to trigger "Nuclear Winter", one should be wary of the party which promises a free lunch ("Voodoo Economics") & delivers a mortgaged future. And where 2 out of the last 2 party nominated administrations were mired in corruption...........(Ford was installed by a Democratic Congress, y'know)................
[Do you think the world today puts any more trust in reagan's pronouncements than Congress does in Eliott Abrams'???-------------------is this really good for "U.S." ??]
A Cavalier Patriot almost Gopher physical chemist phd, peace "Soldier of sixty - three {and eight}"
Steven Dwight Ferber
P.S. one might be wise to recall that abram was Abraham's name before he met God, when he was still unworthy, not Truth - seeking!!!? ("...well, Senator if you don't ask me the question using the exact words I'm thinking of then I don't consider that you've asked me about the matter, pre - cise - ly.... you see?,
<therefore I haven't really lied when I answer as if you haven't asked anything !!!>"
Eliot Abrams B.S.)
[right wing EVASION at its best (worst)]