Tuesday, February 11, 2003

 
Tactic: Implement Radical Policy in Baby Steps

Yesterday it was announced that France, Germany and Belgium would not support the use of NATO forces in defense of Turkey (the only NATO country that borders Iraq) in the event of a Bush invasion of Iraq.

"Brussels, France, Germany and Belgium blocked an effort by other NATO members led by the United States to begin military planning for the defense of Turkey in the event of war with Iraq."

It was widely believed that the move was pure posturing. In other words, None of the NATO countries were about to let Turkey go defenseless in the event of a Bush war. In fact, when Turkey submits their official request for NATO defense, it will be granted.

As it stands now, this scenario puts the Bush war one step closer to reality. The request for defense by Turkey highlights the probability of war, making a genuine possibility in the eyes of the world and perhaps acts as a sort of warning that invasion is inevitable. The NATO tension works into the Bush plans by creating a picture that further demonizes France and Germany (and Belgium), making them the villains that wouldn't even help defend a NATO ally from a Bush inspired attack. Again, Bush is one step closer to his goal.

That goal, of course, is to seize Iraqi oil. One that perhaps came to the minds of the psychotics long before 911. Let's take a step back in time.

Now, it is well documented that Bush and Rove knew about the imminent 911 attacks and realized the potential benefits of such an event to the Republican cause. According to intelligence analysts Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie (as written in their book "Forbidden Truth"), the administration may have even pushed things along a little by threatening the Taliban with threats of a "carpet of bombs" if they did not accept a "carpet of gold" in exchange for their cooperation in helping the US attain central Asian oil. Who knows?

Regardless, 911 only made the situation easier for the administration to pursue it's radical agenda. Indeed, when Bush hit the trifecta, he could taste the oil of Iraq and the blood of its people.

The propaganda began immediately, first in pursuit of Bin Laden and then quickly off to Saddam. From here on it was the administration's goal to slowly walk the US and global public through the process of desensitization and psychological manipulation necessary to gain support for the invasion of Iraq.

The stage was set, not publicly for the specified purpose of seizing their oil, but for the more acceptable purpose of ridding the world of an evil tyrant bent on disposing of his enemies with weapons of mass destruction…and this was just the beginning of the baby-step process that would bring us from a ghastly radical idea to eventual fruition.

The process continued…

The administration took complete advantage of the 911 tragedy:

~ They directed the rage and sorrow from 911 toward Iraq.
~ They expressed feigned outrage at the state of Iraq's WMD program and stressed that it has been ongoing for the past decade, even since the Gulf War when Bush senior failed to remove Saddam from office.

Oh, yeah... and they made sure that they avoided talking about how Dick Cheney, while head of Halliburton, did business with Iraq not more than three years ago and also glossed over the fact that Bush encouraged doing business with Iraq as recently as 2001. Of course they did these things knowing that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction in order to destroy America. True patriots

From there, they wove their web:
~ framing Saddam within the "Axis of evil" (in the tradition of Reagan's "Evil Empire").
~ reconstituting UN involvement in Iraq.
~ framing the international security picture in terms of the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
~ making the "disarming of Saddam" the number one national and global priority.

Now throw in a request (or even a warning) to Turkey to ask for NATO support in the event of a strike. Create a few fictional ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda...and there you go. It's time for war.

The tactic that the administration has implemented with such grace and audacity is this:

Implement radical policy in baby steps.

Technique: Focus on Major issues piecemeal. Do not address them as a controversial whole. Instead, focus on the least objectionable parts. Once these have been accepted, then it is much easier to lead logically from the accepted piece to the more controversial whole.

More specifically…

1) Determine your true policy objective. In this case, the objective is seizing Iraq's oil without worldwide military lashback.

2) Break the objective into its various aspects. With Iraq, these might include:
~ US perception of the threat posed by Saddam
~ Saddam's connection to al Qaeda
~ Belief that war is for oil
~ UN's reluctance to support invasion, etc.

3) Work on the least controversial aspects to build support. 911 made everything that was anti-Iraq, less controversial. Nevertheless, the first thing that the administration worked on was Saddam's image. They tried and continue trying to tie Saddam to al Qaeda. They point out his capability of using WMD in the past and they cite alleged attempts to acquire materials for nuclear weapons.

4) Once support is built at each level, consolidate your gains and move on to the more controversial issues. This next level might consist of:
~ overruling the validity of UN inspections
~ moving of troops into the area
~ Turkey's request for NATO defense would fall in here somewhere. Don't think for a minute that the Bush Administration had no hand in getting Turkey to openly make such a request.

Of course these various levels of controversy are usually indistinguishable from one another or otherwise intertwined. One works upon the other and their relative degree of controversy is open to interpretation. Nevertheless, less controversial issues are usually cemented with support before moving forward.

What you will see is an escalation of commitment that takes place both with those in charge and with those who follow. As they become enmeshed in the drama of each stage, they are less willing to back down from there and more likely to put at risk more of there personal capital in order to see things to fruition. Unfortunately, the failure of this logic should have taught us a lesson during the Vietnam war. I guess nobody was paying attention.

In any event. Each level will be captured and consolidated until the ultimate objective is attained. Once they have convinced some that inspections have failed and Saddam is as big a threat as ever, they will invade. It is a process that will end with many people left unconvinced. Nevertheless, the naysayers are of little concern at that point. A sufficient amount of countries will support the administration and domestic support will be close enough to 50%. The administration will press ahead, claiming that, "doing the right thing is often a difficult thing to do," or "it takes a great and determined leader to proceed in the face of public sentiment. Blah, blah, blah."

Anyway, you get the point. The baby step process is all about managing perceptions through propaganda, something the administration, with Rove at the helm, does so well.

Here are some other examples of where Bush used this tactic:

At one point Bush wanted to develop some environmentally protected land (Surprise, surprise.). So what did he do?

Step 1) He claimed the land for military use.
Step 2) He stripped the protected status from the land in the name of national security.
Step 3) Now, when the military is done with it (which will be soon no doubt) then the land can be sold to developers free from nasty environmental regulations.

To overturn Roe v. Wade:

Step1) Define fetus as "Unborn child". Change the wording of laws changing the word "fetus" to "unborn child".
Step 2) Specify that crimes to the "unborn child" are acts unto themselves, independent of anything that might happen to the pregnant woman
Step 3) Use that language and precedent to work the Pro-choice v. Anti-choice argument back to the Supreme Court with its conservative majority under a new context.
Step 4) Undo Roe v. Wade. So Simple.

This seems to be the primary tactic in the fight against women's reproductive rights. Here are some more examples of how the administration is working in baby steps to overturn Roe v. Wade:

Crimes against unborn children

Legislation was proposed that seeks to punish murderers of pregnant women as double murderers (the woman and the fetus). This seems quite acceptable to most people. The issue is that acceptance of such legislation is also an acceptance of the anti-abortion argument that a fetus is a human being even before it is born. With this idea established, it is much easier to take it a step further and say that the fetus is a human being. Thus, abortion is murder. Thus abortion should be outlawed. It all makes sense.


Stem-Cell Research

Bush stated that he will veto any legislation that creates new fetal stem-cell lines (initiated by the extraction of such cells from fetuses either aborted or grown for artificial Insemination, fetuses that would otherwise be destroyed anyway) with the implication that such actions would be exterminating life even at the cellular level, essentially making the decision for the American people that life begins at conception (the anti-abortion stance).


Third-Term Abortions

The proposed ban on third term abortions is another popular foot-in-the-door tactic. Since fetuses can largely survive outside the body in the third term of pregnancy, most people feel that such a ban makes common sense. The issue arises that if people agree to this, then, maybe we should see how much further the line could be pushed. There have been instances of surviving fetuses within the second term… perhaps the anti-abortion laws should also include the second term. If people come to accept this then why have abortions at all?

And….


Health Care

In cases where expectant mothers have no health care, the Bush Administration has proposed healthcare for all fetuses. This would be done without guaranteed coverage for the mother. I.e. Once the fetus is born, the mother is on her own despite the need for post-partum care.

In Summary: Focus on Major issues piecemeal. Do not address them as a controversial whole. Instead, focus on the least objectionable parts. Once these have been accepted, then it is much easier to lead logically from the accepted piece to the more controversial whole.

posted by Thomas Ball 4:44 PM