|
Random House - December 2003 |
B
O O K R E V I E W
Talk about idealism. An End To Evil is quite the hard-liner’s
utopian dream; but it will be realized only if America does everything that
Richard Perle and David Frum suggest. Otherwise, you’re pessimistic,
resentful, or just plain old lazy. Here, let Perle/Frum tell you, in the
kickoff to the book (p.4): “At this dangerous moment many in the American political
and media elite are losing their nerve for the fight. Perhaps it is the
political cycle: For some Democrats, winning the war has become a less urgent
priority than winning the next election. Perhaps it is the media, rediscovering
its bias in favor of bad news and infecting the whole country with its own
ingrown pessimism. Perhaps it is Congress, resenting the war's cost and
coveting the money for its own domestic spending agendas. Or perhaps it is just
fatigue." Those pessimistic, resentful, lazy non-neocons. How dare
they not fully submit to the Bush Doctrine and all that comes with it? So, now, how does one win this “war on terror” (or, as
Frum-Perle’s leftist counterparts would say, the ‘war for advancing
America’s interests abroad through militarism’, or maybe, ‘the war for
oil and power’)? Let the dust jacket sum up Frum-Perle’s “blueprint”
for the “war on terrorism”: Support the overthrow of the terrorist mullahs
of Iran; End the terrorist regime of Syria; Regard Saudi Arabia and France not
as friends but as rivals—maybe enemies; Withdraw support from the United
Nations if it does not reform; Tighten immigration and security at home;
Radically reorganize the CIA and the FBI; Squeeze China and blockade North
Korea; Abandon the illusion that a Palestinian state will contribute in any
important way to U.S. security. If these things are done, evil will have been defeated, An
End To Evil seems to imply. If these things are done, Frum-Perle will have
won, and there’ll be “Dancing in the streets throughout Iraq if we liberate
that country,” Perle says on television’s Hardball. “The idea that it‘s going to damage us in the Arab
world is nonsense. We will be seen, not as invaders but as liberators,”
he continues. In Perle’s world, the Iraqi’s are still dancing, and the
attack on Iraq did not hurt America’s reputation in the Arab world. Such is
Perle’s optimism, and it is evident throughout this book—but only when
speaking on his aspirations for the neo-conservative agenda. Pessimism abounds
towards anyone or anything remotely hostile to Frum-Perle plans. While reading, a rational, moderate individual becomes
torn, an inter-cerebral war waged within the inner depths of the mind: are
these guys just the white-skinned American equivalents of the radical
extremists they so wish to destroy? Or are they actually leading a noble cause
they truly believe in—an ideology that America needs, to remain a
world-leading power, keeping humanity’s aspirations of freedom and democracy
over tyranny and totalitarianism alive through force? Frum-Perle may appear
extreme or radical at first, but would fundamentalist theocracies and
totalitarian dictatorships be running the planet if such hard-line
intellectualism hadn’t existed in the American sphere of thought? Then one snaps back into reality. Less militaristic, less
confrontational, less America-always-first and more thoughtful ideologies can
also be successful, including in the fight against worldwide terror—which
Frum-Perle (and the Bush administration as a whole) seem to exploit as needed. One particular point in the book shines light on this
exploitation of “the war on terror”, as well as a seldom-discussed
neo-conservative goal—doing something about Hugo Chavez. Was the US
government behind the coup attempt in 2002? All signs point to yes. Were the
neo-conservatives, in keeping with their economic and geopolitical strategies
(keyword: oil) and influence over the US government, the minds behind the coup
attempt? That’s unknown, but Frum-Perle provide an eerie revelation on
Pg.118: “If al-Qaeda is beginning to make itself at home in some remoter
areas of Venezuela, it is because the government of General Hugo Chavez has
invited it in”. Al-Qaeda in Venezuela? Is there any evidence of that? No—no
footnotes, nothing. Merely “if”, and the baseless allegation that
Hugo Chavez would be to blame—if terrorists, hypothetically, were
found in Venezuela. Even more, one paragraph later: “At the other extreme,
governments collude with the terrorists on their soil…as General Chavez seems
tempted to do”. These are the most egregious tidbits in the entire book.
Hugo Chavez, the leftist leader of Venezuela, who has sharply criticized the
‘war on terror’ and Bush administration while outlasting a coup attempt
already, is certainly a neo-conservative enemy. Yet with the allegations on
Pg.118, Frum-Perle not only show how they will massage words and make
evidence-free allegations, using fabrications of ‘terrorism’ and
‘al-Qaeda’ to help their ideological goals—but they may have been secret
advocates of the attempted ouster of Chavez in 2002. Of course, that’s merely a baseless allegation on my
part, as well—but it encompasses more truth that Frum-Perle’s mind-reading
of Chavez’s motivations and temptations, none of which are backed up by more
than the mere accusations. Collaborate with terrorists “As General Chavez seems
tempted to do”, Frum-Perle write. What if, and this is merely hypothetical,
Frum-Perle seemed “tempted to” collaborate with Chavez’s opposition in
Venezuela to finance another illegal, undemocratic coup? Yes, what if? Luckily, that’s all we get from Frum-Perle on the subject
of Chavez—but it leads one to wonder what they’re talking about (or even
plotting) behind the scenes. Other segments of the book inspire questioning: Frum-Perle
write that “in 1998, bin Laden and the Iraqi government opened discussions on
a joint campaign against the United States, according to documents found in
Iraq by the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph in April 2003” (Pg.46). One
of the relatively few footnotes in the book points to none other than a Sunday
Telegraph article called “The Proof That Saddam Worked with bin Laden”.
Frum-Perle love offering up such nuggets in support of their views—yet, a top
secret British intelligence report, according to BBC
News “assessed
that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible
ideologies.” Of course, this is not included in the book—yet all
‘evidence’ that supports the neo-con stance, true or not, is heaped on the
reader in biased, selective, sometimes-deceptive chunks. Never mind that both
American and British intelligence make it clear that Saddam and al-Qaeda did
not work together; Frum-Perle et al, will continue to tell you otherwise. Such
is the general framework of this book. Let’s
go further, describing the shadiness of Mr. Perle. Looking at the
aforementioned Telegraph article referenced in the book, it comes as a conflict
of interest. Consider this: Perle, according to the Guardian, “[runs]
Hollinger Digital - part of the group that publishes the Daily Telegraph in
Britain”. So the pro-war Telegraph, run in part by Richard Perle, happens to
find amazing documents that prove Saddam and Osama were in cahoots—then Perle
references this in his book as proof that Saddam had to be taken out. Who knows
what really went on here, whether the documents were real or partially
fabricated, and what part the Perle conflict-of-interest played in 'obtaining'
such documents. It's just hard to trust Perle, who has had other such conflicts
in the past. (You
may already know about Perle’s conflict of interest as exposed by journalist Sy
Hersh, which is a whole other story whose scope moves beyond this measly
book and into territory of government viability). Frum-Perle
then write, “Unearthing the links between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would
have been hard work under any circumstances. But the persistent opposition of
the CIA and the DIA to any outside investigation of those links made the task
all the more difficult.” They heap their praises on the Office of Special
Plans [Guardian,
New Yorker]
(which they, tellingly, do not actually name). How dare the CIA—that
persistent opposition—question the Osama-Saddam links (which simply don’t
exist in any serious form)? You can just imagine Frum-Perle on a bad day,
calling the CIA ‘treasonous’ and ‘anti-American’. Again, more hostility
towards anything hostile to their agenda and aspirations. Even worse, its unbelievable how wrong these guys can be.
For example, their support for Chalabi (which shows up a lot in the book) now
leaves them looking like fools, even to those that supported the war. No
weapons of mass destruction have been found, and the reality is, Saddam Hussein
did not pose any resemblance of a threat to America. Yet these guys will
continue to tell you otherwise. Humorously, Frum-Perle complain about there not being a
“countervailing anti-Saddam, pro-Western voice on the Iraqi airwaves…In
large part because the Department of State had blocked plans by [Ahmed
Chalabi’s] Iraqi National Congress to establish an anti-Saddam broadcasting
facility”. Oh, for shame! The supposed Iranian spy Chalabi and his reviled
group weren’t given a chance to spout off propaganda—nor lead a puppet
government in Iraq, even! Frum-Perle will tell you all about it. This is a neo-conservative manifesto, no doubt about it.
Even more, it’s a basic introduction to the neo-con doctrine, written
bluntly, simply, with a tone of ‘this is the way it is, everyone else is
wrong’. The title, language, and pronouncements are bold as steak sauce. Publishers Weekly, in a review of the book, states that “Despite the authors' insider resumes, little
here is groundbreaking. Many of their opinions and arguments are those debated
daily in the media”—very telling, and quite fitting—the opinions and
arguments are ones you hear daily if you watch cable news or read political
opinion, because Frum-Perle et al are the ones concocting and reinforcing them! Neo-conservative groups like the AEI
(to which Frum-Perle belong) and PNAC
have influence—they have a great deal on Bush and the Republican Party (as
you can see by the party’s acceptance of many neocon principles since the
election of Bush, and 9/11). They had a large amount on Clinton, and although
he will put up a stronger guard, they will have some effect on Kerry, if he is
elected. Sadly, this book does more to expose the extremism in these
two men’s ideology and the mistakes in their strident push for war and future
wars, than actually make their case. For ‘intellectuals’, they’ll need to
come out with something more respectable. The Weekly Standard and the AEI
website, for example, are better sources for neo-con material, while An End
To Evil is more like a cartoonish neo-conservatism manual for the kids. Polemic, propaganda, manifesto; call it what you will, An
End To Evil does not signal the end or even the beginning of anything, but
it is a fascinating look at what the Frum-Perle’s of the world will peddle to
get their way. It isn’t pretty, but it’s important, if only to understand
the extremists—both in America, and abroad—playing large roles on the world
stage. It was Richard Perle who said that “If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it
entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a
total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now.”
This is a radical, waging an ideological, economic, geopolitical war against
other radicals. In An End To Evil, Frum-Perle’s extremism certainly
shines through. At one point, Frum and Perle write that the
State Department and CIA didn’t like Ahmed Chalabi because “they were
humiliated by the frequency with which Chalabi had been right and they had been
wrong”. When will David Frum and Richard Perle feel the
same type of humiliation—that everyone else had been relatively right, while
they, well, haven’t?
|
|
© 2004 CounterBias.com
