Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Drive For Global Domination Has Put Us In Greater Danger
Moral Authority, Which Is Our Greatest Source of Strength, Has Been Recklessly Put at Risk by This Wilful President
The pursuit of "dominance" in foreign policy led the Bush administration to ignore the UN, to do serious damage to our most important alliances, to violate international law, and to cultivate the hatred and contempt of many in the rest of the world. The seductive appeal of exercising unconstrained unilateral power led this president to interpret his powers under the constitution in a way that brought to life the worst nightmare of the founders. Any policy based on domination of the rest of the world not only creates enemies for the US and recruits for al-Qaida, but also undermines the international cooperation that is essential to defeating terrorists who wish to harm and intimidate America. Instead of "dominance", we should be seeking pre-eminence in a world where nations respect us and seek to follow our leadership and adopt our values.
With the blatant failure by the government to respect the rule of law, we face a great challenge in restoring America's moral authority in the world. Our moral authority is our greatest source of strength. It is our moral authority that has been recklessly put at risk by the cheap calculations of this wilful president.
The Bush administration's objective of attempting to establish US domination over any potential adversary was what led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war - a painful misadventure marked by one disaster after another, based on one mistaken assumption after another. But the people who paid the price have been the American men and women in uniform trapped over there, and the Iraqis themselves. At the level of our relations with the rest of the world, the administration has willingly traded respect for the US in favour of fear. That was the real meaning of "shock and awe". This administration has coupled its theory of US dominance with a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, regardless of whether the threat to be pre-empted is imminent or not.
The doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that Iraq is not necessarily the last application. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states - Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran - but the implication is that wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction together with an ongoing role as host to, or participant in, terrorist operations, the doctrine will apply. It also means that the Iraq resolution created the precedent for pre-emptive action anywhere, whenever this or any future president decides that it is time. The risks of this doctrine stretch far beyond the disaster in Iraq. The policy affects the basic relationship between the US and the rest of the world. Article 51 of the UN charter recognises the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right to take pre-emptive action in order to deal with imminent threats.
By now, the administration may have begun to realise that national and international cohesion are indeed strategic assets. But it is a lesson long delayed and clearly not uniformly and consistently accepted by senior members of the cabinet. From the outset, the administration has operated in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right, at the expense of solidarity among all Americans and between our country and our allies. The gross violations of human rights authorised by Bush at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and dozens of other locations around the world, have seriously damaged US moral authority and delegitimised US efforts to continue promoting human rights.
President Bush offered a brief and halfhearted apology to the Arab world, but he should make amends to the American people for abandoning the Geneva conventions, and to the US forces for sending troops into harm's way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders. Perhaps most importantly, he owes an explanation to all those men and women throughout our world who have held high the ideal of the US as a shining goal to inspire their own efforts to bring about justice and the rule of law.
Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people. It is useful and important to examine the warnings the administration ignored - not to point the finger of blame, but to better determine how our country can avoid such mistakes in the future. When leaders are not held accountable for serious mistakes, they and their successors are more likely to repeat those mistakes.
Part of the explanation for the increased difficulty in gaining cooperation in fighting terrorism is Bush's attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation that disagrees with him. He has exposed Americans abroad and in the US to a greater danger of attack because of his arrogance and wilfulness, in particular his insistence upon stirring up a hornet's nest in Iraq. Compounding the problem, he has regularly insulted the religion, the culture and the tradition of people in countries throughout the Muslim world.
The unpleasant truth is that Bush's failed policies in both Iraq and Afghanistan have made the world a far more dangerous place. Our friends in the Middle East, including most prominently Israel, have been placed in greater danger because of the policy blunders and sheer incompetence with which the civilian Pentagon officials have conducted this war.
We as Americans should have "known then what we know now"- not only about the invasion of Iraq but also about the climate crisis; what would happen if the levees failed to protect New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina; and about many other fateful choices that have been made on the basis of flawed, and even outright false, information. We could and should have known, because the information was readily available. We should have known years ago about the potential for a global HIV/Aids pandemic. But the larger explanation for this crisis in American decision-making is that reason itself is playing a diminished, less respected, role in our national conversation.
Al Gore is a former US vice-president; this is an edited extract from his new book, The Assault on Reason, published this week by Bloomsbury.
© 2007 Al Gore
22 Comments so far
Show AllOnly if he leaves the Democratic Party? Maybe he could be instrumental in helping progressives reclaim the Democratic Party.
PowerofLove,
I hope you are right because Gore has a name that is much needed to be electable.
I would consider him only if he leaves the Democratic Party.
panamahead,
Don't get me wrong, I embraced Air America on its inception. But I got sense that it is touching on topics that's on the Democratic party' agenda. In effect, being the attack dog for the party, not unlike the conservative radio being the attack dog for the republican party. Randi Rhodes is just a screaming head like Rush or Hannity. I lost respect for her when she attacked Nader on the first day of Air America's airing (and sometimes goes on her vicious attack of Patti Smith, who campaigned for Nader). You could see who Rhodes is doing her for. I don't think Chomsky or Zinn were ever on that station. Plenty of democratic deal makers were on it though.
You probably listen to Air America because you don't have true independent media like Pacifica Radio. People in places w/o those stations or have access to its shows always says how great Air America is, but that is until I bring up the much better alternative that's out there.
Best to realize that individuals like Gore can GROW (and I'm not merely referring to his recently expanding waistline).
If you can, look and listen carefully to Gore's televised interview by Charlie Rose. This was on last night, 5/25, on PBS. It was held before a live audience, who were able to submit questions --- and Rose was a surprisingly tough interviewer.
The Gore of today is on fire, and passionate about his love for democracy, the biopshere, and the US of A.
Today, he looks to be willing to take on anybody - and deeply realizes how much is at stake.
Of course Gore has been (and is) a member of an elite club. These days, it is part and parcel ot getting to be Prez or Vice Prez of this country.
However, it has been clearly shown that even individuals wedded to a neo-nazi/skinhead/or neo-con ideology can go through radical change - a turn around at their core. Examples abound.
When will we realize that things will never be "perfectly" this way or that? We really need to jettison our "black vs. white thinking." (Like Bush's "You're either for or against us.") We live in a world or extreme complexity and nuance. And, today, more than ever before, we ignore that at our own peril.
And yes, of course he has acted like an idiot. What politican hasn't? It's almost synonymous with the job. From what I observe, what he went through in 2000 humbled Gore, and shook him to the core.
And, you know, for all of us, too, it's "GROW OR DIE" time. As Thom Hartmann has clearly illustrated in his very readable book, "We the People," the future of our 200+ year experiment in democracy is in serious peril.
Oh yes, then there's that matter whether the earth will be habitable by humans...It's so easy for us to self-destruct...
Gore is already involved in a campaign. And its issues are planetary in scope. Perhaps he is exactly where he is meant to be ---
"I just Googled Article 51 of the UN Charter, and nowhere does it state the right to take pre-emptive action in order to deal with imminent threats."
Exactly. By the same token, nowhere does it prohibit the right to take pre-emptive action. There are two clauses stated in the article:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
and,
"Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Yet another example of what your definition of is, is.
(1.) There is a right to self-defense.
(2.) Members of the United Nations are obligated to report measures taken in the exercise of that right.
Only with the failure to report its actions would the United States be in violation of Article 51.
Lawyers!
wangman,
"they themselves support the concept of occupation that is going on in the middle east"
That doesn't sound right. Tell that to Rachel Maddow or Randy Rhodes.
"OPeration Desert fox"
How many US presidents used too much force and not enough diplomacy? A long legacy of bad foreign policy helped bring about 9/11.
A president Al Gore would never invade Iraq knowing it posed no threat to us, knowing US soliders would die, knowing it would weaken our moral standing.
Other Democratic hopefuls never questioned Bush and actually support his war. Gore will do better than that.
Hi NMBill,
I imagine an equation: on the one hand there's the creeping neo-fascism in our own country, and the need to deal with it immediately, if not sooner.
On the other hand, there's the entire biosphere, which includes *human civilization.* (such as it is). And at this level we are in deep s--- as well.
I see the two as intimately related, and actually interdependent. Thom Hartmann's latest blog was just posted on this site ('The Rupublican Plan Starts Today'). His cold, clear appraisal of things on the domestic front lays out a number of serious political challenges faced by progressives. In my comment I tried to articulate a complementary planetary viewpoint.
The truth is that humanity, and our plant- and animal-kin, may not be able to afford Gore's return to the highly compromising and shadowy world of politics. One thing I feel sure of: our species and our planet (Homeland Earth) desperately need him to be doing what he's doing now.
The stakes are high on all fronts (and I believe more so than any of us yet know).
Enough of us need to become "awakened in time" --- quieting our minds, opening our hearts, and sharpening our will - willingness to take wise, courageous, compassionate, skillful action.
Anyway, let's keep our eye on the ball and, as they say in the 12-step programs, "Keep it in the day."
I continue to learn a tremendous amount from the writings of Eckhart Tolle (www.eckharttolle.com) who clearly shows that it is only though "The Power of Now" - that we have any shot at all of saving ourselves from the collective insanity which our egos have created.
panamahead,
Air America wasn't even in the camp of withdrawal until recently. Their statements were always "Bush screwed up the occupation", never the fact that occupation is the problem. Of course, Air America does not want to bring up the morality of occupation because they themselves support the concept of occupation that is going on in the middle east.
It might be trendy to be against the war and occupation now, but where were they in the last few years?
As for Gore, don't forget, the invasion and conquest of Iraq did not start at 2003. Clinton/Gore started the escalation in 1998 with Operation Desert fox, where they bombed Iraq to a pulp, readying the 2003 invasion to take place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29
And don't forget the genocidal sanctions on Iraq that killed 1.5 million people. That even puts the war criminal Bush's massacre of Iraq to shame.
I want him to run next election.
I respect Mr. Gore's work towards educating the masses of the environmental crisis we face. However, in truth, this massive problem was realized decades ago. Capitalism and our free market system prevented any meaningful progress in preventing global warming.
I disagree with pointing the finger and placing blame. One of the problems is there is NO accountability.
I know that Gore talks beautifully about the environment and the importance of a free and open internet, but it is important to remember his role in the New Democratic Leadership Council and that the Clinton presidency very quietly sold out on the environment. Not just in giving in to pressure from Congress, but in executive orders that were the exclusive domain of the presidency. I realize that Vice Presidents are window dressing and cannot really be blamed for policy, but, again, refer back to his role on the NDLC and consider the likelihood of his being true to his expressed values. Unlikely, I think. Clinton sounded like the savior of American politics, too, when he was running for his first term in the White House, but he sold out EVERYTHING in short order. He was a more reasonable human being that Bush. More compassionate, perhaps. Less likely to COMPLETELY disgrace and destroy the nation. But he sold us out. He ran as a populist and ruled as a Reagan democrat. Sure his social policies were more humane, but his economic stance was conservative. I have read over and over again the mention of Welfare Reform and NAFTA under his watch. The fact of the matter is that NO politician who acheives the White House is going to be a person of substance. Even Kucinich (yes, in my heart, I do believe in fairy tales and fully support Kucinich for President, but, seriously, if he got near the office, his soul would be ejected into the vastness of space and he would instantly be just like every other candidate...) would sell us out. My heart pleads to believe otherwise, but my brain knows it to be true.
As to moral authority, Mr. Gore lost his credibility by the very suggestion that we have HAD moral authority to protect in the last 50 years. I believe that we did possess (though I am not clear why) until Korea. By the time we were in Vietnam, surely it had to be something of a joke. Maybe one that US citizens weren't in on, but the rest of the world got it, right? I mean, our long history with Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic...our reaction to every regime change led by popular revolt. We invaded Russia after World War I, and we wondered why the Russians were so paranoid. We tried to assassinate and undermine Castro and we wonder why he was a bit touchy about opposition. We burned the staple foods of the Nicaraguans and poured money in to influence public opinion and we wonder why the Sandinistas were leary of frequent elections. We have NO moral authority in the world. We don't even have to leave the borders of the country to establish this incredible lack of moral authority. Ask any Native American their view of U.S. moral authority and I'm sure you'll get a laugh.
Mr. Gore is a hack for the ruling elite. He talks pretty, but I'm sure in tennis, his best shots come from his backhand. We DO need a third party. And a fourth, and a fifth, and a sixth...We need to revise our entire system of represenation. Mr. Gore mentions that We should have known better about a great many things under Mr. Bush, whether it be Katrina, Iraq or 9/11. As a matter of fact, we DID know better Mr. Gore and we still DO. Hear our voices raised in outrage as the Democrats surrender to Big Oil, to Mr. Bush on his dirty little war, to trade policy..We are not fooled, Mr. Gore. We are simply not HEARD. And to pretend it is otherwise is to prove yourself to be the same disingenuous aristocrat as every other Democrat who sold out the interests of the NATION, this week.
ascrowflies May 24th, 2007 4:20 pm:
I just Googled Article 51 of the UN Charter, and nowhere does it state the right to take pre-emptive action in order to deal with imminent threats.
I'm not sure what to make of Gore's assertion.
they just make it up as they go along.
same old Oral High Ground.
"Freedom"
"Democracy"
"Liberty"
saying it doesn't make it so.
Al Gore has never explained why he backed off in 2000 and gave Bush the field when he had ample public support to protest the obvious illegalities going on in Florida and the misuse of power by the Supreme Court. He failed to act and stand for the right thing.
Nonetheless, he is appreciated for his subsequent effective advocacy of global environmental issues. In this arena, there is no contest for him. He is not reluctant to stand for truth here when there is no one else to stand against him. Climate change is a slam dunk.
Some of the causes of the failure of his political will in 2000 are evident in this piece. Together they reveal a lack of political common sense and political vision.
He is lately bewailing the failure of "reason" in the political process, and yet he embraces this irrationality himself.
In reference to the BushCo role visa a vis 911, he says; "It is useful and important to examine the warnings the administration ignored - not to point the finger of blame, but to better determine how our country can avoid such mistakes in the future." Reason, and common sense, demands that those who were culpable in terms of poor performance in their official duties prior to the mythical event, should have been disciplined or fired. Like the 911 Commission, he is loath to place blame. The security of the most powerful national security state in the world was breached and no in the security establishment paid a price. The 911 Commission advanced an elaborate piece of specious reasoning exonerating all those in power, and no one paid a price except those who were murdered. This supremely irrational response to a national outrage is warmly embraced by Al Gore, this latter day champion of the virtue of "reason".
His approach to the problem of US global domination represents another example of irrationality. "The Bush administration's objective of attempting to establish US domination over any potential adversary was what led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war - a painful misadventure marked by one disaster after another, based on one mistaken assumption after another. But the people who paid the price have been the American men and women in uniform trapped over there, and the Iraqis themselves."
We know now and we knew then, too, that the invasion of Iraq was not based on "mistaken assumptions". It was based on bald-faced lies and a calculated ambition to see Saddam Hussein liquidated and his country's oil resources privatized. Doesn't matter what the uninformed members of Congress believed, what matters is what BushCo knew. They knew the facts and they lied. That they lied themselves into a quagmire of human carrion is beside the point.
Gore is being mendacious on this point and that is not surprizing for a man who played second fiddle to Slick Willy.
But, not to be too hard on Al Gore, who has put global warming on the best seller list, he is a politican, a man of the polls. He is not an enlightenment saint of reason, nor is he a political visionary. He's a good guy with a good heart.
He just doesn't have any balls.
[[The Bush administration's objective of attempting to establish US domination over any potential adversary was what led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war]]
The miscalculations came because we were lied to!
Who is Al, protecting?
wangman,
Air America recently aired a speech by Al Gore on the eve of the Iraq invasion. If you haven't heard it, he was against the invasion from the start. He wasn't against it before he was for it.
You think any of the Democratic candidates are more qualified to lead than Gore? They should just compete to be his running mate. Al Gore will be the next president of the United States.
If you see that global warming is the most important issue of our time, Al Gore is our man.
ascrowflies, you are right. Plus Article various resolutions clarified that it is not just "nations" that has the right to defend itself, but also collective people in their struggle for self determination.
It is obvious why he used the term "nation" and "pre-emptive action", since the country he constantly puts on the mantle (Israel), fits those definitions nicely, and the ones it is oppressing, does not.
It is also unbelievable that Gore still thinks we went into Iraq under the assumption of intelligence that turned out to be bad. It is well known early on that the plan to conquer Iraq was set, and the intelligence was build up to support that position. At the end, he still thinks this country has some moral superiority or exceptionalism, which is at the root of all imperial conquests.
"Article 51 of the UN charter recognises the right of any nation to defend itself, including the right to take pre-emptive action in order to deal with imminent threats."
I just Googled Article 51 of the UN Charter, and nowhere does it state the right to take pre-emptive action in order to deal with imminent threats.
I'm not sure what to make of Gore's assertion.
The Assault on Reason is a good opportunity to revisit the Florida 2000 assault on the vote. According to my calculations, Kathleen Harris' convicted felon purge resulted in the failure to count a 15,000 vote advantage for Gore over Bush. Check out the math in this week's essay, Florida 2000 and Al Gore's New Book, at MP3-My Politics and Progressive Perspective: http://hankedson.squarespace.com
I wonder where Gore's commitment to abiding by international law was during the cruise missle attack on Sudan in August 1998? It destroyed the capacity of Sudan to make medicine for a long time. I'm not convinced of Gore's sincerity. And I won't be until he addresses his own complicity in the many illegal uses of force while he was vice-president.
Al Gore is right that 'the people who have paid the price' for the US War Against Iraq are the US soldiers and the Iraqi people as a whole. In fact, the American public is also paying the financial price for this militarism. But it didn't all start with the arrival of George W. Bush into the White House. We should not all develop a bad case of amnesia about Al Gore and the Clintons. It was their adminstration that carried on the warfare against Iraq for 8 long years, and Al Gore doesn't have a shred of moral credibility about him at all. In fact, the Democratic Party leadership as a whole not only is complicit in the American government's crimes against Iraq, but is integral to what was done and still is being done. Al Gore's main complaint is that Bush is doing the crimes in a less than totally unsuccessful manner, but even now most of the party he is affiliated with seems utterly ready to help the Bush Adminstration extend the war into an attack on Iran, too.
Would he have been better than GW? Sure. Would we have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq had he been in office in 2001? Not likely. Would the world have been a better place? Sure.