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

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

May 24, 2017
Paul Street
Beyond Neoliberal Identity Politics
Daniel Read
Powder Keg: Manchester Terror Attack Could Lead to Yet Another Resurgence in Nationalist Hate
Robert Fisk
When Peace is a Commodity: Trump in the Middle East
Kenneth Surin
The UK’s Epochal Election
Jeff Berg
Lessons From a Modern Greek Tragedy
Steve Cooper
A Concrete Agenda for Progressives
Michael McKinley
Australia-as-Concierge: the Need for a Change of Occupation
William Hawes
Where Are Your Minds? An Open Letter to Thomas de Maiziere and the CDU
Steve Early
“Corporate Free” Candidates Move Up
Fariborz Saremi
Presidential Elections in Iran and the Outcomes
Dan Bacher
The Dark Heart of California’s Water Politics
Alessandra Bajec
Never Ending Injustice for Pinar Selek
Rob Seimetz
Death By Demigod
Jesse Jackson
Venezuela Needs Helping Hand, Not a Hammer Blow 
Binoy Kampmark
Return to Realpolitik: Trump in Saudi Arabia
Vern Loomis
The NRA: the Dragon in Our Midst
May 23, 2017
John Wight
Manchester Attacks: What Price Hypocrisy?
Patrick Cockburn
A Gathering of Autocrats: Trump Puts US on Sunni Muslim Side of Bitter Sectarian War with Shias
Shamus Cooke
Can Trump Salvage His Presidency in Syria’s War?
Thomas S. Harrington
“Risk”: a Sad Comedown for Laura Poitras
Josh White
Towards the Corbyn Doctrine
Mike Whitney
Rosenstein and Mueller: the Regime Change Tag-Team
Jan Oberg
Trump in Riyadh: an Arab NATO Against Syria and Iran
Susan Babbitt
The Most Dangerous Spy You’ve Never Heard Of: Ana Belén Montes
Rannie Amiri
Al-Awamiya: City of Resistance
Dimitris Konstantakopoulos
The European Left and the Greek Tragedy
Laura Leigh
This Land is Your Land, Except If You’re a Wild Horse Advocate
Hervé Kempf
Macron, Old World President
Michael J. Sainato
Devos Takes Out Her Hatchet
L. Ali Khan
I’m a Human and I’m a Cartoon
May 22, 2017
Diana Johnstone
All Power to the Banks! The Winners-Take-All Regime of Emmanuel Macron
Robert Fisk
Hypocrisy and Condescension: Trump’s Speech to the Middle East
John Grant
Jeff Sessions, Jesus Christ and the Return of Reefer Madness
Nozomi Hayase
Trump and the Resurgence of Colonial Racism
Rev. William Alberts
The Normalizing of Authoritarianism in America
Frank Stricker
Getting Full Employment: the Fake Way and the Right Way 
Jamie Davidson
Red Terror: Anti-Corbynism and Double Standards
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, Sweden, and Continuing Battles
Robert Jensen
Beyond Liberal Pieties: the Radical Challenge for Journalism
Patrick Cockburn
Trump’s Extravagant Saudi Trip Distracts from His Crisis at Home
Angie Beeman
Gig Economy or Odd Jobs: What May Seem Trendy to Privileged City Dwellers and Suburbanites is as Old as Poverty
Colin Todhunter
The Public Or The Agrochemical Industry: Who Does The European Chemicals Agency Serve?
Jerrod A. Laber
Somalia’s Worsening Drought: Blowback From US Policy
Michael J. Sainato
Police Claimed Black Man Who Died in Custody Was Faking It
Clancy Sigal
I’m a Trump Guy, So What?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail