Saturday, August 25, 2012

THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF BUSH by CRAIG UNGER



Some of the very best Books about political policies are written by Journalists with a wide all rounded grounded experience of the pragmatism of real life experience , as opposed to some academics closed within the restricted ghettos of their own specialisations and dogmatic cliques.

Ungers thesis in this Book is that there is a clash not of civilisations , rather a clash of fundamentalisms from Christian;Islam;Jewish and the secular fundamentalism of Nationalism in the form of the Neo-Cons.

The Book charts the assembling of "Team Bush" being a project going back to well before the presidency of George Bush Snr , led mainly by Dick Cheney.Protagonists of this project served as long ago as the time of Nixon , as in the case of Rumsfeld.

You can get a very detailed companion piece to the drama and players in the Book from its dedicated website.

The rich cast of characters included a whole clutch, especially ideological advisers , come from those , according to the Milliband Snr doctrine , not to dissimilar to the career of our very own Dr. John Reid in the UK, made a transition from ultra-left Trotskyite to uber-right neo-con dogmatic fundamentalists , proving the rule that the ultra-left and ultra-right really share the same goals of world domination , and arent too fussy to jump ship to join whichever format will get them nearer their nefarious goals.The Ultra-Left want the working class to lay down their lives and hand them power , whereas the Ultra-Right turn to the Corporate model to the road to power.

This extremely illuminating and perceptive interview brings out in stark detail the main points of the Book.

In this interview , Unger pinpoints the manner and pole played by the neo-cons in bringing about the War which ultimately proved disastrous for all concerned. 




One major crippling flaw in the Book is the implication that US policy was hijacked , then shifted by the neo-con / Christian-Right alliance.While it is true that Clinton had rejected efforts by the neo-cons to wage war on Iraq.It was a question of nuance of policy rather than ultimate goals.One has to remember that the Iraq sanctions and the deliberate prolonging of the myth Iraq has WMDs was all throughout Clintons time in Office.What the neo-cons did was to fast-track the continuous policy to "conclusion" rather than alter it in any substantial manner.Hence why the Bush drive to war was not opposed by the Democrat opposition who in effect where the authors of the policy that the neo-cons wished to fast-track from drip-feed to a shock and awe finale.Whereas sanctions are the preferred weapon of Democrats , overwhelming Military Might was the tool of the neo-con project.

In this respect Ungers thesis is not only wrong , but dangerously wrong as far as differential between Republican pursuance of Foreign Policy as opposed to Democrat is concerned.The Iraq war a disaster made in both Houses of the US political spectrum.If anything it is the Republicans , and not Obamas Democrats who have learned the lesson of not putting Harm in the way of US Military Forces more.

If it happens , it may well be under the watch of a Republican President that any ill-advised Military strike against Iran occurs , but the architects and script-writers of the show will be in Democratic Ink.

No comments:

Post a Comment