Thursday, July 02, 2009

Craziest Conservative of the Day: Michael Scheuer

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Maybe you read about it at C&L, maybe you heard about last night on The Daily Show. Here's what Michael Scheuer told Glenn Beck, crazy meets crazy, on Tuesday (video below):

The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it's going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It's an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.

Insane. On so many levels.

First, who exactly desires the praise of Europeans? Obama? I'm sure he wants Europe to like him -- and to like America (and what's wrong with that? isn't in America's best interests to have Europe as an ally? -- but it's crazy to suggest that somehow "these politicians" (and again, who?) -- are driven primarily by a concern for Europe.

Second, who are "the media" and "the Europeans"? Are all media the same? Does "the media" include Politico, Fox News, and The Wall Street Journal, three leading media outlets that also happen to lean to the right? And is Europe just some monolith of monotony? Crazy on both counts.

Third -- okay, I was just putting it off, here's the key point -- what the fuck?

You know, sometimes you just have to thank whatever god or gods you happen to believe in, or, if no god, just thank you lucky stars, when a conservative comes out and tells it like it is.

Because isn't that what Scheuer did?

Now, look, I'm not saying all conservatives are hoping for a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. I hope that most aren't -- and I'm sure the more sane among them aren't.

But what's clear is that conservatives like Scheuer -- and there are many of them (neocons, mostly, but not only), -- promote a Cheney-esque national security agenda that is, at its core, violent.

Consider how Scheuer put it: "with as much violence as necessary." What does that mean? It means, presumably, an agressive, warmongering foreign policy and an agressive, repressive domestic policy. It means war abroad but also a trampling of the Constitution at home. It means an executive branch, and a president specifically, liberated from any and all checks and balances. It means domestic surveillance without checks. It means torture. It means, essentially, a police state. Actually, what it means is fascism. And you'd be correct to find in Scheuer's words the very justification for oppression that has underpinned authoritarian and totalitarian regimes throughout history: An enemy is upon us; therefore, we crack down.

The problem is, try as they might, these conservatives can't get what they want just by scaring up an enemy. 9/11 provided the basis for the Bush Administration's crackdown, but, alas, 9/11 has receded into memory, and, well, Americans still cherish their liberties.

So what Scheuer and his ilk need, if they are to be successful in achieving their fascistic aims, is not just another attack but a major attack, an attack with "a major weapon" -- a nuclear attack, a biological or chemical attack, something much bigger than 9/11, something that would scare the people into submission.

This is clearly what they think they need, and -- yes, thank you -- Scheuer admitted it. It's rare to get such a far-reaching glimpse into the conservative mind.

And it is possible that, in the event of such an attack, the people would willingly give up their liberties and allow a fascistic cabal to rule them. Something as massive as a nuclear attack would surely turn America upside-down. I wouldn't put it past them.

I don't know, though. Sometimes I'm optimistic about the indomitable spirit of the American people -- the spirit that was on display throughout Obama's presidential campaign and on election night, sometimes not so much. It could go either way.

But back to the point at hand: Conservatives (and Republicans generally) claim that liberals (and Democrats) are weak on national security, that their policies weaken America and open her up to attack. And yet, conservatives, not liberals, are openly wishing for another attack. Which begs the question: Do these conservatives actually want to protect Americans, or, rather, do they simply want power, the unified, fascistic power of a police state?

I'll go with the latter.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments:

  • I'm not sure why Scheuer made this comment. He did, after all, endorse Ron Paul in 2008, after echoing Paul's statements that terrorists hate America because of our attacks on Iraq and other countries.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:19 PM  

  • Maybe looking for something logical in Scheuer's behavior is looking in the wrong direction. I don't think his intentions are backed by much more than irrational hatred of Obama: a hatred so intense that he'll just say anything that comes into his head.

    I'm hoping that he's miscalculated the number of people who would, in any event, go into a frenzy of "protect me! protect me!" if someone blows up another building or crashes another plane. I think more of us are rather cynical about how we fell for it the last time.

    By Blogger Capt. Fogg, at 9:04 AM  

  • I think you have to look at what Scheuer is saying. Clearly, we have not and cannot beat the Taliban and al Qaeda using current and past approaches. The only approach that will work is a massive retaliatory strike that leaves no doubt in the Islamist mind that killing Americans has consequences. What he is SAYING is that it will take another attack on America before we figure this out. He is not "inviting" an attack per se.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:55 AM  

  • I think that it is very easy to mis-understand and mis-represent people's ideas from what is blurted out in some televised sound-byte; If you have read any of Sheuer's books, you would see pretty quickly that his perspective is definitely one that calls for checks and balances....not a Fascist police state as your as assuming. He is so pissed off because that's what America has become to the world. It has declared itself as the policeman of the world and all of it's affairs. It has arrogantly and unjustly imposed it's "good-natured, humanitarian democracy" by force on peoples who do not have any sort of a political or cultural structure to support such a system. It is this arrogance that has marked America. Sheuer is one of the few voices that are actually speaking out about this type of injustice in our world....all ramifications of American foreign policy. He argues for a return to a constitutional, non-interventionist foreign policy that doesn't see itself as some "arrogant lone enforcer of all that is good" (whether the rest of the world likes it or not). The parallels that you try to make in your article (like Scheuer with Bush and Cheney and wars abroad) seem to be a gross misunderstanding of the ideas and nuances in thought that Scheuer has in contrast with the Bush administration. It is as if you wrote this article by just seeing this you tube video and just trying to draw misinformed conclusions. You really need to read these books before you comment next time : "Through Our Enemies Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America", "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" (completely disproving your assertions about any Fascist, authoritarian ideology), and "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq". You should take some time and familiarize yourself with the man's ideas before falsely categorizing him. This type of mud slinging and generalizing doesn't serve any of us well. you probably have people that read your articles and immediately endorse your perspective because you are a good writer and and appear as though you have the most credible perspective. I challenge you to take the painfully rigorous task of thoroughly aquatinting yourself with the ideas of someone before you try to discredit that person; don't try to debunk a. straw man. It doesn't serve you well or your readers who could possibly end up ingesting ideas that are very skewed and false.

    By Blogger www.clairestrebeck.com, at 11:43 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home