By David Remer, June 17, 2003   Political News & Analysis

In response to an article by Brian Knowlton, June 17, 2003, regarding Gingrich's call for the overhaul of the US State Department, a critical analysis is required. (See link below for Knowlton’s article). Gingrich is a hawk who believes that the US should use its military and economic might to reshape the world according to US whims and designs. There is no doubt that Newt Gingrich is patriotic, he loves his country. What he does not seem to acknowledge is that his brand of patriotism is just another form of nationalism. And while he condemns nationalism in countries that won’t play ball with the US, he seems unwilling to recognize what the US looks like to other nations, nor, would he care if he did recognize it.

It is apparent from Gingrich’s words that what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant, since, we have the power to enforce world compliance within certain limits. Brian Knowlton quotes Gingrich as saying “The world does not have to love us but it must be able to predict us." Knowlton states, “His [Gingrich] article in Foreign Policy magazine calls for a new "global communication strategy" that would much more actively seek acceptance of American policies, and where that failed, at least clearly inform the world of American plans.” It is clear Newt Gingrich is calling for a state department that informs the world of how it is to bend and yield to American global designs with or without the world’s acceptance.

It is also clear from Gingrich’s remarks that he believes the State Department should be playing the role of propagandist rather than diplomat. Again from Knowlton’s article, “He said that American statecraft had become stodgy and "too narrow" for modern times, that better communications with the world were desperately needed but "literally beyond the capacity of the current system," and that the Foreign Service culture favored "politeness and accommodation" at times when a tougher approach was warranted.”

And what does Gingrich mean by a tougher approach? It seems clear from the following when Knowlton states, “He urged a formal analysis of international news coverage leading up to the Iraq war, and suggested that Arab governments whose state-owned news media had shown "anti-American hostility" should be pressured to change.” Knowlton continues with the following, “Mr. Gingrich was not apologetic about wanting to spread American values robustly. If other countries failed to support "core values" important to the United States — free speech, free markets, free elections, equality of women, racial equality and other values — then "it is hard to imagine a world in which U.S. safety can be secured."

And as we have all learned of late, securing safety for the US is good enough reason for invasion, regime change, and all out war. This approach of Newt Gingrich is extremely dangerous for the US and its military. Newt Gingrich currently holds a position as member of a Pentagon advisory board, and as such is advocating that the military approach to international acceptance of American foreign policy is the only way to secure America. He even goes so far as to suggest that the power and authority of the State Department, Defense department and other agencies involved in international communication be brought directly under the supervision of the President.

The Constitution of the US clearly intended to separate through checks and balances the agencies and branches of government as a protection against any one person, agency or branch of government making unilateral decisions for the American nation. Newt Gingrich is now recommending just the opposite when he calls for all powers to negotiate with foreign nations, to communicate with foreign nations and to contract with foreign nations be consolidated in the office of the President. Founding fathers would view this as restoration of the King we fought so bloodily and ardently to get out from under.

Brian Knowlton’s excellent article found in the International Herald Tribune can be viewed HERE

6:01:54 PM  Google It!  

David Remer, June 17, 2003  --  Political News & Analysis

Stories out of the British news media today (see stories below) indicate damning testimony about Prime Minister Tony Blair's role in Iraq invasion is coming out. While Republicans in the US House of Representatives are unwilling to pursue an investigation of whether or not the Administration lied to the American people and Congress about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Queda. However, if damning evidence builds to prove the case in Great Britain that Tony Blair lied about these same facts to the Brits, the same body of evidence will probably become the basis for investigation of President Bush and his justification for invasion.

The reason for this is straight forward. Tony Blair and George Bush presented themselves on the world stage as operating off the same play book. They shared informational resources and conducted strategy sessions together. While it is not clear whether Blair and Bush exchanged intelligence reports, it appeared they shared the same information from those reports in justifying to their respective governments and citizenry the direct and imminent threat posed by Iraq. Therefore, if Tony Blair is brought down for lying to Great Britain, it will surely bring pressure to bear on Congress to conduct its own investigation of the Bush administration's rationale for war.

In the US, if it is established that the administration misrepresented the threat of Iraq in order to use the tax and military resources of the US for other purposes, this will likely result in being defined as a abuse of office and possible impeachment hearings for high crimes and misdemeanors, the same charges that brought about President Nixon's resignation for abuse of office and government resources. The big question however, is whether a dominant Republican presence in the Congress would be willing to pursue such investigation or impeachment hearings against a president of their same party. Democrats have already begun calling for the investigation, but, they do not hold sufficient votes to bring such investigation about. Should Tony Blair be branded a liar over the threat of Iraq, it will be the American media which may make the difference as to whether or not investigation of the administration takes place in public hearings. Without public outcry for investigation, it is unlikely the majority party would hold such public hearings, which would likely have negative consequences for the 2004 election cycle.

9:48:42 AM  Google It!