New York Times July 20, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Sign up to receive Paul Krugman's daily writings
In the original version of "The Manchurian Candidate,"
Senator John Iselin, whom Chinese agents are plotting
to put in the White House, is a
right-wing demagogue modeled on
Senator Joseph McCarthy. As Roger Ebert wrote, the plan
is to "use anticommunist hysteria as a cover for a
communist takeover."
The movie doesn't say what Iselin would have done if the
plot had succeeded. Presumably, however, he wouldn't
have openly turned traitor. Instead, he would have used his
position to undermine national security, while posing as
America's staunchest defender against communist evil.
So let's imagine an update - not the remake with Denzel
Washington, which I haven't seen, but my own version. This
time the enemies would be Islamic fanatics, who install as
their puppet president a demagogue who poses as the nation's
defender against terrorist evildoers.
The Arabian candidate wouldn't openly help terrorists.
Instead, he would serve their cause while pretending
to be their enemy.
After an attack, he would strike back at the terrorist
base, a necessary action to preserve his image of
toughness, but botch the follow-up, allowing the
terrorist leaders to escape. Once the public's attention
shifted, he would systematically squander the military
victory: committing too few soldiers, reneging on promises
of economic aid. Soon, warlords would once again rule most
of the country, the heroin trade would be booming, and
terrorist allies would make a comeback.
Meanwhile, he would lead America into a war against a
country that posed no imminent threat. He would
insinuate, without saying anything literally false, that it
was somehow responsible for the terrorist attack. This
unnecessary war would alienate our allies and tie down a
large part of our military. At the same time, the Arabian
candidate would neglect the pursuit of those who attacked
us, and do nothing about regimes that really shelter
anti-American terrorists and really are building nuclear
weapons.
Again, he would take care to squander a military victory.
The Arabian candidate and his co-conspirators would block
all planning for the war's aftermath; they would
arrange for our army to allow looters
to destroy much of the country's
infrastructure. Then they would disband the
defeated regime's army, turning hundreds of thousands
of trained soldiers into disgruntled potential insurgents.
After this it would be easy to sabotage the occupied
country's reconstruction, simply by failing to spend
aid funds or rein in cronyism and
corruption. Power outages, overflowing sewage and
unemployment would swell the ranks of our enemies.
Who knows? The Arabian candidate might even be able to
deprive America of the moral high ground, no mean
trick when our enemies are mass
murderers, by creating a climate in
which U.S. guards torture, humiliate and starve
prisoners, most of them innocent or guilty of only
petty crimes.
At home, the Arabian candidate would leave the nation
vulnerable, doing almost nothing to secure ports, chemical
plants and other potential targets. He would stonewall
investigations into why the initial terrorist attack
succeeded. And by repeatedly issuing vague terror warnings
obviously timed to drown out unfavorable political news, his
officials would ensure public indifference if and when a
real threat is announced.
Last but not least, by blatantly exploiting the terrorist
threat for personal political gain, he would undermine the
nation's unity in the face of its enemies, sowing suspicion
about the government's motives.
O.K., end of conceit. President Bush isn't actually an Al
Qaeda mole, with Dick Cheney his controller. Mr.
Bush's "war on terror" has, however,
played with eerie perfection into
Osama bin Laden's hands - while Mr. Bush's supporters,
impressed by his tough talk, see him as America's champion
against the evildoers.
Last week, Republican officials in Kentucky applauded
bumper stickers distributed at G.O.P. offices that
read, "Kerry is bin Laden's man/Bush
is mine." Administration officials haven't gone that far,
but when Tom Ridge offered a specifics-free warning about a
terrorist attack timed to "disrupt our democratic process,"
many people thought he was implying that Al Qaeda wants
George Bush to lose. In reality, all infidels probably look
alike to the terrorists, but if they do have a preference,
nothing in Mr. Bush's record would make them unhappy at the
prospect of four more years.
....back to:
....alternative news
American Pictures
....gives Moore
thanks
....gives pizza
.....gives the plane truth
....gives
liberation
.....gives you the
blues
......gives Bush a human face
.....gives billionaires for Bush a free rap
....gives you the
world vote on Bush-Kerry
|