Then the bang ended with a whimper. Is lying just an integral part of the US culture and the political landscape, or are we such a cowed nation since 9/11 that whatever the government does is OK? Whatever the reason, we need to refocus the lens on the much bigger lie of omission, an issue that has a greater bearing on how we go forward as a nation.

What no one is talking about openly on either side of the Atlantic is the Bush Doctrine: the 21st century version of imperialism in which the US takes over the unfriendly dictatorships of the Middle East, one by one, and builds military bases across the region so that both the economies and self-defense of these countries become dependent on our largesse--a modern day colonization, if you will. The Bush Doctrine is based on neo-con ideas that have been simmering for over two decades. These ideas are narrowly discussed on some of the neo-con websites, but they have never gotten much traction outside of these circles.

The confluence of neo-con doctrines, 9/11, and Bush’s own religious fundamentalism gave the Bush Doctrine raison d’etre. The Bush Doctrine sets up a dependency that keeps the US in the position of the single superpower, controls the oil, and juggles to maintain Arab support all at once. Quite a coup if you are in accord with the objective: transforming the Middle East.

For Bush, the religious end (Apocalypse soon) justifies the means; for him it’s ordained by God so how could it be wrong? But the Bush Doctrine is actually an old, on-going neo-con position that has come home to roost in the ideology and persona of W. These policies underlie all the overt lies and aggressive stands taken by Bush and his supporters. The first leg of the plan is to frame both the policy and the actions taken on its behalf in terms that the public can sign on to: anti-terror, WMD possession that is or could be a threat, and the ‘peaceful’ installation of ‘democratic governments’ to thwart the threat. The removal of Saddam was only a short-term goal, the first of many steps in the long-term plan to remake the Middle East in the neo-con/US image. The Bush policy has never been about anti-terrorism, wmds or Saddam; it’s about reshaping the Middle East. That’s why as the rhetoric kept changing, the deception got lost in the bigger picture - it was no big deal to those who have bought into the goals. And to ensure both public confusion and support where they can get it, they play the propaganda cards as well as any middle-eastern dictator.

While the public starts to turn its attention to WMD lies and the shifting rationale for going to war, the neo-cons are busy behind the scenes fine-tuning the Doctrine and calling the shots within the Administration to make sea changes in the Middle East – building huge military bases with taxpayer dollars; threatening Iran and Syria with economic sanctions and more, trying desperately to hold on to the thin coalition forged in Iraq. Perhaps it’s by design that the current Iraqi ‘government’ is so tenuous. After all, if it fails, guess who will pick up the pieces and form another imposed interim government. By then, the military installations will be more deeply entrenched and better able to secure the country, what’s left of it. So as Iraq deteriorates, the neo-cons don’t really care – as Schwarzenegger said: “I’ll be back.”

Imperialism, of course, is an ingrained part of British history, but it is an archaic concept in this day and age and certainly no more politically correct there than it is in the US. Blair’s worry is of long-term US dominance and lack of confidence that the EU will be able to act as its counter. In the US neo-con value system, US lying only counts if you’re talking about Clinton’s sex life; in the UK, the lie covers Blair’s fear of being cut from the ‘A’ list of partners in the new, budding empire that our ambitious President is erecting (if “ya can’t beat em, join em” is Blair’s dictum). On both sides of the Atlantic, the public policy is very different from the private one and both Bush and Blair have used an equally hypocritical stance to lead their nations to war: the ends justify any means.

In this ‘benign’ imperialistic view, to the neo-cons the US is the protector of the world, to Bush as the leader of the US, he is the missionary of the 21st century. For both, promoting ‘democracy’ and preventing terrorism are the mantras and lying is OK in that context because it’s promoting the ‘greater good.’ The UK rationale is somewhat different, but the methodology is the same. When the liars are caught, they wrap themselves up in the American flag and act like philosopher-kings prodding a willing and weak public to trust their leaders because they know best.

Historically, presidential doctrines have defined our overall policy about every hundred years: Monroe Doctrine (1823), the Roosevelt Corollary of Monroe Doctrine (1904) and now here comes Bush 100 years later. The Bush Doctrine is not really so different in attitude from Monroe’s grabbing control of this hemisphere or Roosevelt’s aggressive seizure of commerce south of our borders. Both implied ‘or else’ threats. The Bush Doctrine is another corollary except the geography makes a seismic departure. The message is: stay out of the Middle East – we are the only superpower so we keep the oil and control it. Although in both of the earlier doctrines the underlying goal was also economic land-grab and protection of commerce, neither engaged in pre-emptive war and both were publicly announced at national addresses to the union.

Of course, the world has changed since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and his ‘big stick.’ The new Radical Republicans know that not only would American popular support for the Bush Doctrine be thin, but it would feed our enemies and create new opposition. Unfortunately, that reality doesn’t make the neo-cons stop and rethink the policy; it just impacts the strategy they use to put it in place. In order to start implementing such a policy, the Bush Administration has to lie, less they be stopped in their tracks. So they feed on the frenzy of post 9/11 fear and lie about the rationale for their actions. The fact that the Bush policy is shrouded in post-9/11, anti-terrorist language adds credence to it and allows a traumatized public to give their consent to lies in the name of “self-defense.” When the public gets wind of the lies, they forgive their lofty leaders in the name of anti-terrorism. Except that too is a lie. This perception has been carefully crafted to gain wider support for the underlying policy. The only policy rationales put out are about terrorism and fighting the enemies of democracy who threaten our existence. Lofty goals that no one would be against.

The Bush Doctrine is not new, it’s just not in the news. All the blustering about the lies about WMD and preplanning of the war miss the larger policy lie and it’s why the story fizzles. So long as the average American remains threatened by another terrorist attack, Joe American doesn’t care about lies in the name of self-defense. The neo-cons use the language and tactics of anti-terror in the same way as the Cold War hawks used it during the red scare in that embarrassing era of our history. Good-bye Cold War Domino Theory, hello War on Terror Reverse Domino Theory: take down the dictatorships of those who could supply our energy, one at a time, and replace them with our own colonial capitalistic enterprise. In their anti-terror frenzy, the Radicals go after anyone who is ‘soft’ on anti-terror the same way they did anyone who was ‘soft’ on communism.

The public needs to connect the dots: The much bigger and more important lie here is not all the lies about the existence of wmds – that was a red herring – it’s the non-announcement of the Bush Doctrine as official US policy.

Lynne Glasner lives in New York. She can be reached at lyngla@rcn.com

© 2005 Lynne Glasner

###