|
|
80 of 116 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
The Neocons of the Democratic Party, October 22, 2006
Rahm Emanuel is an important figure in American politics, now head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) which carries great weight in the selection of Congressional House candidates. In that role Emanuel has spent considerable time and effort knocking out peace candidates, replacing them with prowar candidates as when he pushed out Christine Cegelis in Illinois in favor of Tammy Duckworth in the Democratic primary. Duckworth is for staying the course.
So how does Emanuel view issues of war, peace and foreign policy? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy. Here is the book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:
"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror"
("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our interest or that of humanity.)
"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. (He begins by playing on fear.) America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. (An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations. What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?) We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new spy domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.)"
There it is, straight from the horse's mouth.
How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006 Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on Iraq, the number one issue on voters' minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the "war on terror." Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), "Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician," by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: "On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. `The war never had to turn out this way,' he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press's Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-`knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction'-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn't take office until after the vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?' he added."(3)
When Jack Murtha made his proposal for withdrawal from Iraq, Emanuel quickly declared that "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position." That was November, 2005. In June, 2006, it was obviously time, and Emanuel finally revealed his policy in a statement on the floor of the House during debate over Iraq, thus: "The debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on terror. ...We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and watch, stand pat, stay put, status quo and that is the Republican policy. ...Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy." The refrain is familiar; more troops are the means and victory in Iraq is the goal.
The booklet is mercifully short although quite repetitious and very poorly written, a real MEGO experience. In addition to the section on "the war on terror," there are seven other parts of the book which are full of old Democratic nostrums - universal health care, but only for kids, not for all; no extension of social security but adding 401k plans; etc. But the militarism and even statism are what stand out most. The book is a clear indication why the Democratic party is not a genuine opposition party. Why not? That is another story.
The reviewer can be contacted at john.endwar@gmail.com
|