Five Years After 9/11: Why Did Bush Blunder?

On Sunday, five years less a day
after Saudi and Egyptian terrorists killed 3,000
Americans, the New York Times reported in

More Muslims Arrive in U.S., After 9/11 Dip
:

"In
2005, more people from Muslim countries became

legal permanent United States residents
—nearly
96,000—than in any year in the previous two decades
."
[By Andrea Elliott, September 10, 2006]

Of course, no foreign Muslim can
hurt us here in America unless we let him into
America
. But the Bush Administration, instead of

securing the borders
, is ginning up another round of
war fever.

Iran in 2006 is being compared to
Germany in 1938—although the

clearest comparison
is to Iraq in 2002.

Of course, the Iranian Shi`ite
government`s new influence in the

Persian Gulf,
which we`re supposed to worry so much
about, is the result of the Administration
destroying the Iraqi Sunni secular regime that was
deterring Iran—and

replacing it
with a Shi`ite-dominated administration
with close ties to Iran.

As I`ve been pointing out for

some time now
, rather than doing something simple
and sensible such as increasingly

disconnecting
America from the chaos of the

Muslim world
, the Grand Strategy of the Bush
Administration in the half decade since 9/11 has
contradictorily consisted of

  • Invade the world

  • Invite the world

  • In hock to the world

The prodigious young blogger

Daniel Larison
similarly sums up the Bush
Administration agenda as: "
Imperialism,
Immigration, and Insolvency
."

Websites like

Belmont Club
try to reassure the faithful by
offering ever more convoluted explanations of what the
Administration`s master strategists are actually up to.
But the suspicion is growing that, rather than being
masterful

Machiavels
always seeing a half-dozen steps ahead,
the White House has simply lacked the competence to
judge what its various spasmodic actions will unleash.

Is there an underlying rationale to
Invade-Invite-In Hock?

Or has American policy simply been
the chaotic outcome of the shifting power struggles of
Administration players each in the grip of his own
idée fixe
?

Whether you`re a

Pollyanna
optimist or a paranoid pessimist, it`s
still an oddly comforting assumption that somewhere,
behind all the nonsensical propaganda, there is somebody
smart who is secretly pulling the strings to achieve his
goals, whatever they may be.

That there`s an Inner Circle
comprised of profoundly competent men plotting the
course of history is one of the most popular staples of
science fiction. In

Star Wars
, the

Jedi Knights
battle each other to determine the fate
of the galaxy. In Isaac Asimov`s

Foundation trilogy
, psychohistorian

Hari Seldon
has scientifically grasped what will
happen for the next 1,000 years.

The same pattern is found in
science fiction by "serious" authors. The
climaxes of both  famous English mid-century dystopian
novels, Aldous Huxley`s

Brave New World
and George Orwell`s

1984
, are didactic dialogues in which omniscient
and omnipotent Inner Circle representatives proudly
explain to the idealistic main characters the sinister
logic behind the regime`s disinformation.

In 1932, Huxley`s

Mustapha Mond
, the brilliant physicist turned global
oligarch, details why the government requires everyone
to dither away his or her time on hedonism.

Then in 1948, Orwell followed with
the

horrifying encounter
between Outer Party member
Winston Smith and O`Brien of the Inner Party:

"`How
does one man assert his power over another, Winston?`


"Winston thought. `By making him suffer,` he said.


"`Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not
enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that
he is obeying your will and not his own? … If you want a
picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face— for ever.`"

So—has America`s policy since 9/11
been dictated by benevolent Obi-wan Kenobis and Hari
Seldons or by evil Mustapha Monds and O`Briens?

"Neither," suggests

Gregory Cochran
, the physicist and geneticist, who
correctly pointed out in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was

too broke
to have a nuclear bomb program. "There
is no Inner Party in our government. They just
don`t know what they are talking about."

The reality, in Cochran`s view, is
more like

Idiocracy
, the funny new movie from the
wonderful

Mike Judge
, creator of

King of the Hill
and Office Space, whom I
profiled in VDARE on

3/26/06
. A 100 IQ soldier played by Luke Wilson is
accidentally frozen for 500 years. When he awakes, he
discovers that everyone he meets is a moron.

Who is behind this horror? The hero
is whisked off to the White House. But instead of
meeting an all-seeing Mustapha Mond who can reveal the
inner workings of the dystopia, the "President of
America
" turns out to be a professional wrestler as
clueless as the voters who elected him, with a cabinet
chosen to make him feel intellectually adequate by
comparison.

Similarly, consider, today`s Number
Three man in the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005, the
civilian

neoconservative
"intellectual"

Douglas Feith
. He was notoriously described as
"the #$%^&*@ stupidest guy on the face of the earth"

by General Tommy Franks, whose own

mental acuity
reminded few observers of, say,

Admiral Raymond A. Spruance
, the victor of Midway.

In a memo a few days after 9/11,
Feith proposed first attacking

South America
as "
a
surprise to the terrorists
,"
which, it indeed
would have been, as well as a surprise to the rest of
humanity over the age of two.

Feith`s reasons for wanting to use
American military might to slaughter random Arab
merchants who do business on the
Paraguay-Argentina-Brazil "
Triple
Border
"
(as well as anybody else who happened to
be in the vicinity) were no doubt

deeply personal
. (Feith`s longtime law partner in
"Feith
& Zell
"
was

L. Marc Zell
, who is a prominent spokesman for
extremist Zionist settlers in the West Bank.)

Still, Feith`s plan was also
flagrantly ridiculous. As a coherent entity, "the
terrorists"
exist even less than any Bush
Administration “Inner Party”. There are no
"the terrorists"
— just terrorists, many of whom hate
each other, and many of whom are no threat to the U.S.
(And there were definitely no terrorists
endangering America in remotest South America.)

Yet, rather than being eased out of
his crucial position immediately after so graphically
displaying his unfitness, Feith stayed on for another
four years to work his Idiocracy-style mischief,

pipelining
convicted conman

Ahmad Chalabi`s
lies about Saddam Hussein`s
purported WMD programs to

Dick Cheney
.

Meanwhile, the Number Two man at
the Pentagon,

Paul Wolfowitz
, another neoconservative
intellectual, was using the opportunity presented by the
mass murder committed by Saudi and Egyptian Islamist
fanatics based in Afghanistan to call for conquering the
anti-Islamist Iraq regime of the secular
socialist Sadam Hussein.

While Feith`s chief motive appears
to have been to kill Arabs, any Arabs, Wolfowitz is
widely considered an

idealist
who actually believed the Administration`s
flapdoodle about the Arabs being ripe for democracy.

But why would any grown man think
such a thing about the Arabs?

We may never know for sure. But
private motivations have been known to drive outsiders
in the Middle East in the past. For example, on the

684th and last page
of T.E. Lawrence`s eloquent
memoir

Seven Pillars of Wisdom
comes the stunning
statement that Lawrence actually had a secret reason for
liberating the Arabs in 1917-1918 and he`s not
going to tell us what it was:

"The strongest motive throughout had been a
personal one, not mentioned here, but present to me, I
think, every hour these two years.

The least vague answer

Lawrence ever provided
was once, when asked why he
had fought for Arab independence, he

replied
:

"I
liked a particular Arab, and I thought that freedom for
the race would be an acceptable present."

The most likely candidate for
Lawrence`s favorite Arab was a

teenage waterboy
. Similarly, we found out in 2005,
when Wolfowitz of Arabia was being kicked upstairs  to
head the World Bank (just like that other failed Defense
Department official

Robert McNamara
), that Wolfowitz`s favorite Arab was

Shaha Riza
, a
middle-aged Arab feminist. According to the
Washington Post
, his girlfriend "shares
Wolfowitz`s passion for democratizing the Middle East."
[
Europeans
Resist Wolfowitz for World Bank
,
By Paul
Blustein and Richard Leiby, March 18, 2005]

I`m sure Ms. Riza, along with all
her family and friends that Wolfowitz met, is highly
capable of participating in a

Jeffersonian democracy
. But one shouldn`t help send
one`s country off to war based on such an unscientific
sample.

The least likely candidate for the
role of the brilliant Mustapha Mond: the man who
actually holds ultimate responsibility—President George
W. Bush.

Yet Bush`s former

ghostwriter
persuasively outlined the mixture of
cheap politics and oedipal jealousy that inspired Bush`s
hopes for an Iraq war

well before 9/11
:

"`He
was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,` said author
and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. `It was on his mind.
He said to me: “One of the keys to being seen as a great
leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.” And he
said, “My father had all this political capital built up
when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted
it.” He said, `If I have a chance to invade….if I had
that much capital, I`m not going to waste it…

"Herskowitz
said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an
underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father.
In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to
emerge from his father`s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz
said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks."

Bush`s invite-the-world immigration
plan makes little sense either as policy or politics.
Five years after 9/11, it`s becoming obvious that his
Administration`s invade-the-world strategy reflects
mostly the deluded obsessions of a few men of strong
passion and weak reason.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]