More old ... 5

Now, who can explain to me why oil has reached $70 a barrel?

Watched a video at CSPAN from the Middle East Institute of a presentation of Col. Larry Wilkerson (Retired). He was assistant to Colin Powell while he was at the State Department and now has a couple of "visiting professor" jobs. He was introduced as a "warrior scholar" and appears to be one bright cookie. And that is not just because I agree with him.

I would say his talk was about the "radicalization" of George W. Bush and his administration. My notes are only so, so, but here goes.

Oh, by the way this video is still in the CSPAN archives. Do a advanced search on "wilkerson."

The radicalization of the administration and the Bush presidency in general could be illustrated by some recent decisions:
* the dismissal of the Kyoto accords
* and the Iraq war

In the present re-evaluation of the war, these things are being noted:
* there were too few troops
* it was a mistake to not stop the looting
* there was no post-invasion planning; there were no auditors and contract specialists on the ground at the beginning of the "reconstruction" phase.

An evaluation of the US military is that they have been through a lot to position themselves for what has been asked of them at the beginning of the 21st century.
See the documentary, Why We Fight.
There are a lot of young military who are "good thinkers" and they are becoming concerned.

One of the radical decisions has become an internal threat to our liberties.
Discussed the history, briefly, of the 1947 National Security Act.

Need to study what happened to the country in 1945 that changed our republic forever. At the end of WWII, America stood as the pre-eminent power in a world with all the other traditional powers decimated. Truman was faced with the task of forging a political consensus among competing interests to confront this new power with out sacrificing our civil liberties and not compromising our political and cultural values. Those values which made us great. As de Tocqueville noted of America, she is great because she is good. If she ceases to be good, she will no longer be great. This is a balancing act which has faced each succeeding presidency since 1945 and previous presidents have managed to do it one way or another.

One aspect of this is the "horseless leader." I think I have the name correct. This is the office of the Joint Chief of Staff. The Joint Chief reports directly to the President and is on the National Security Council, but has no command in the military and can be circumvented in the field by the Defense Secretary, and has been. Sometimes scrambling to find out just what is happening in the field of operations.

Here, Wilkerson mentions these books that he has assigned to his classes:

Running the World, he notes this book is flawed, but it is the only modern one available.
A Cross of Iron
Assassin's Gate
The Lesser Evil, I'm starting to read this one.

Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy understood the tensions of reconciling the national security state with civil liberties and our values.

And there is the fiscal situation that surrounds this effort.

This is what has molded our republic since WWII. It is the balance between a military making foreign policy or the military totally subservient to civilian authority.

Discussed Jefferson and of his warning about the tyranny of the minds of men. He warned of the priest and of their own government. Discussed that the Jacobeans followed the French Revolution. Noted the poem Dover Beach. Noted that the British and hence the American Revolution was the product of an evolution not a revolution.

In Dec. of 2000 and Jan. of 2001, President Bush started down the path of radical change, evidenced by the personalities he brought together. There were signs of radical changes.
* There was defined a new national security strategy. These did not represent mistakes of a newly forming administration, but were calculated changes.

* the idea of preemption
* no longer caring about our long time alliances and friendships, the Old Europe and New Europe
* no longer the desire to continue compromises

becoming more and more radical

For Wilkerson, who was part of it, in May 2004, it was the detainee abuse issue, for him the straw that broke the camel's back, and which forced him to speak out. He describes doing it at a podium, when it was no part of his prepared remarks.

These are the some of the responses of the radical administration
1. Cut Arafat out of everything/Clinton recommended it, he said that Arafat had ruined his presidency. Powell was moved to action in the Middle East, but the Vice President and Karl Rove prevented him from doing anything.

2. Iran was ready to talk with the US at the time of the Iraq invasion. They thought they were next. (Others have since refuted the degree to which this was happening.) The vice president and secretary of defense made no decision by default, no negotiation with Iran, this became "we do no negotiate with evil." We now have no leverage with Iran. It is a radical policy not to exercise diplomacy.

3. North Korea, they have abandoned the agreed framework.

4. The continuing of the ballistic missile defense. Is it worth the $200 million expenditure when experts say it only has a 12-14% success rate?

5. Continuing relations with France/Germany and other European countries, Powell worked on maintaining these good relations. The best counterterrorist efforts come out of these alliances.

6. The biggest challenge is Taiwan/China/US/Japan/Russia/India sphere with power centered in Beijing, economics. There was radical opposition to Colin Powell's efforts.

Mentions Eisenhower's warning of the Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex.

Princess Bride
Gunner Palace
The Military/Industrial Complex by Bob Dillon.