FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush’s Misleading Pledge to Destroy Abu Ghraib

by GREG MOSES

Already two claims have been repeated about the President’s War College speech, but both claims are misleading. First is the claim that the speech offered nothing new. But this claim is misleading because it fails to take seriously the meaning of the particular prime time venue. The image of the War College audience is not just another backdrop.

Second is the claim that the only news of the evening was the President’s pledge to demolish Abu Ghraib prison. And this is misleading, because the President promised to build another prison first.

If we correct for these misleading claims, the War College speech becomes another kind of promise from the President-not to stay the course, nor to reduce the prison count in Iraq. Rather, the President promises the War College audience that he plans to fully exploit the US uniformed services to advance the construction of a globalized garrison state.

Before Abu Ghraib can be torn town, said the President in effect, the US Army will protect the contractors that will build the replacement prison. And he said all this in such a way that his proposals were met with a burst of televised applause from the uniformed professionals themselves.

No, the War College speech was not nothing new. It was a crucial escalation in a plain agenda of power over the people, both at home and abroad.

Let’s take another look at the venue. The White House scheduled the War College speech during prime time, and was successful in attracting live coverage from commercial cable news networks. Broadcast networks, citing the fact that the White House did not “formally” request live coverage, stuck to their sweeps-week entertainment. But the White House baited the television hook, and networks were tacitly pressured to concede the time.

“The broadcast networks took an unusual amount of time to tell viewers their plans for Bush’s speech,” reports USA Today. “ABC didn’t decide until Monday afternoon.” Despite the lack of a “formal” request, the pressure was on.

The decision by the White House to schedule the War College speech for prime time was itself a political judgment that bears more scrutiny than it has been given. Clearly, the White House was trying to drive the President’s message into the image of the War College audience, with tightly packed uniforms of green.

In terms of image politics, there was nothing subtle about it. The War College speech was a “policy” speech, addressed to the nation and to the world. It was not a War College speech as such, yet it made deliberate use of the War College backdrop.

Especially during these crucial days of international war, with nearly 140,000 troops stationed in Iraq, Americans should be wary of war policy speeches that make use of military backdrops. There should be scrupulous respect paid to the distinction between the formulation of civilian policy and the carrying out of military orders. From his War College podium, President Bush broadcast an image that collapsed all distinctions between his role as civilian President and military Commander in Chief.

The proper study of the War College is how to carry out military objectives. The proper role of the White House is to take direction from Congress regarding the adoption of military objectives that pertain to the defense of the Constitution. At the War College, the President projected an image of warmaker among warriors, as if the whole business of this war were a matter between him and the uniformed forces of the USA. It was perilous shift of images, if we still dare to insist that our uniformed services should respond only to democratically formulated policies.

The image of the Army should never be used to sell military policy to the nation or the world. Prime time images of applause, dressed in Army green, only aggravate an increasing militarization of politics. And the White House is to be plainly faulted for trying to frame these militarized images in order to bolster support for political purposes that are falling under increasing suspicion, even from conservative members of the President’s own Republican party.

When we buy into the image of the President’s policy being applauded by military scholars, we forget that the professional military establishment has been hijacked by this administration to pursue aims far afield from anyone’s sworn duty to protect the Constitution. We forget that supporting the troops in a democracy requires that we insist they not be manipulated into public displays of affection for policy directions that belong to Congress to decide. So we cannot pass this speech off as just another political talk to a “friendly audience.”

In short, there is a distinction that democracies must respect between their uniformed services and the political authority of civilian rule. If President Bush was able to transgress that distinction without comment and deliver a speech that seemed like “nothing new,” then we have sad evidence that the banality of our militarization has become complete. The war on the American mind has been won.

Which brings us to the second mislead that is already too often repeated: the President only promised to demolish Abu Ghraib prison. A more careful reading of the speech indicates something more serious going on. Before American troops seek Iraqi permission to demolish Abu Ghraib, said the President, “America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison.” In effect, the President promised that the US Army will stand guard in Iraq while contractors initiate the construction of an American-style, prison-industrial complex.

I am in receipt of a long email from Texas ex-cons who offer their writings via a Yahoo group called The Prison Experience. The email is entitled, “Extremist Prison Racial Politics and Propaganda,” and the authors argue, based upon their firsthand experience with the Texas prison system, that prisons nurture racism of the extremist kind, whether the prison is Abu Ghraib or not.

At his War College speech, the President uses the word “democracy” eight times. He also uses the word “war” or “warfare” eight times. Indeed, careful consideration of the War College speech would leave us relieved to know that in the President’s words democracy still stands an even chance.

GREG MOSES writes for the Texas Civil Rights Review. He can be reached at: gmosesx@prodigy.net

 

Greg Moses writes about peace and Texas, but not always at the same time. He is author of Revolution of Conscience: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Philosophy of Nonviolence. As editor of the Texas Civil Rights Review he has written about racism faced by Black agriculturalists in Texas. He can be reached at gmosesx@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
February 12-14, 2016
Andrew Levine
What Next in the War on Clintonism?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Comedy of Terrors: When in Doubt, Bomb Syria
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb
Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy
Paul Street
When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party’s Jill Stein
Rob Urie
The (Political) Season of Our Discontent
Pepe Escobar
It Takes a Greek to Save Europa
Gerald Sussman
Why Hillary Clinton Spells Democratic Party Defeat
Carol Norris
What Do Hillary’s Women Want? A Psychologist on the Clinton Campaign’s Women’s Club Strategy
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Election: Any Good News for Palestine?
Linda Pentz Gunter
Radioactive Handouts: the Nuclear Subsidies Buried Inside Obama’s “Clean” Energy Budget
Michael Welton
Lenin, Putin and Me
Manuel García, Jr.
Fire in the Hole: Bernie and the Cracks in the Neo-Liberal Lid
Thomas Stephens
The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective
David Rosen
When Trump Confronted a Transgender Beauty
Will Parrish
Cap and Clear-Cut
Victor Grossman
Coming Cutthroats and Parting Pirates
Ben Terrall
Raw Deals: Challenging the Sharing Economy
David Yearsley
Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Formation: Form-Fitting Uniforms of Revolution and Commerce
David Mattson
Divvying Up the Dead: Grizzly Bears in a Post-ESA World
Matthew Stevenson
Confessions of a Primary Insider
Jeff Mackler
Friedrichs v. U.S. Public Employee Unions
Franklin Lamb
Notes From Tehran: Trump, the Iranian Elections and the End of Sanctions
Pete Dolack
More Unemployment and Less Security
Christopher Brauchli
The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley
Bill Quigley
Law on the Margins: a Profile of Social Justice Lawyer Chaumtoli Huq
Uri Avnery
A Lady With a Smile
Katja Kipping
The Opposite of Transparency: What I Didn’t Read in the TIPP Reading Room
B. R. Gowani
Hellish Woman: ISIS’s Granny Endorses Hillary
Kent Paterson
The Futures of Whales and Humans in Mexico
Michael Howard
Hollywood’s Grotesque Animal Abuse
James Heddle
Why the Current Nuclear Showdown in California Should Matter to You
Steven Gorelick
Branding Tradition: a Bittersweet Tale of Capitalism at Work
Nozomi Hayase
Assange’s UN Victory and Redemption of the West
Patrick Bond
World Bank Punches South Africa’s Poor, by Ignoring the Rich
Mel Gurtov
Is US-Russia Engagement Still Possible?
Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown Receives Cold, Dead Fish Award Four Years In A Row
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
Fighting and Protecting Refugees
Jennifer Matsui
Doglegs, An Unforgettable Film
Soud Sharabani
Israeli Myths: An Interview with Ramzy Baroud
Terry Simons
Bernie? Why Not?
Missy Comley Beattie
When Thoughtful People Think Illogically
Christy Rodgers
Everywhere is War: Luke Mogelson’s These Heroic, Happy Dead: Stories
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen: Rockin’ the House in Albany, NY
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“The Martian”: This Heroism is for Chinese Viewers Too
Charles R. Larson
No Brainers: When Hitler Took Cocaine and Lenin Lost His Brain
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail