Can a Leak in Washington Cause a Civil War in the Middle East?
By Chad A. B. Wilson
Published March 17, 2007, 5:49 pm in Ethics, Morality, & Justice, Rhetoric.
Oversight and Reform
Valerie Plame has finally come out with some public statements. Her only previous public comments were given last year after they filed a lawsuit against Rove, et al. There, she didn't say much, just explained the lawsuit. And then there were the Vanity Fair photographs, which were just weird. How strange that an undercover CIA operative would appear in a national magazine like that. Isn't that reserved for the Matt Damon/Brad Pitt types who play spies on TV? But nope, we can't deny that Plame and Wilson are looking for attention. They could have had a lot more of it, of course, but they're trying to do it in a reserved, i.e. professional, manner. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But now she has appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Everyone knows it's a bit of a pretense, though. In reality, it's the Democrats flexing their critical, whining, Bush-bashing muscles. It seems to be the only muscles they have these days, too. Forget actually trying to do something; instead, they whine and complain. Only two of the Republicans on the committee even bothered to show up to the farce, which pointed out the nature of the critical nature of the show.
Plame, of course, had some provocative things to say, and I can imagine that what we're really witnessing here is a prelude to the upcoming civil trial, whenever that will actually take place. She said that "My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department." And then this: "It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover...from purely political motives." The leak "jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents, who in turn risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence. Lives are literally at stake."
Even though she may be overstating the point, she's kind of right. Even if the special counsel's investigation determined that the leak was unintentional, it shows some lack of discretion, if not judgment. It's important to be careful with these things, after all, and isn't it a bit too much of a coincidence, anyway? How it could it just be an accident that the name of a CIA operative was revealed days after her husband published a very public criticism of the administration and the push to Iraq? That just makes no sense.
But you know what makes less sense? That they did it, if they did, that is. I mean, what good did it do them to reveal her identity? Did they just want her out of the CIA? Or was it just revenge? I have no idea. Neither of those makes sense to me, especially considering the furor that the leak actually caused. Does it matter, though? Was it just a signal to others, especially in the media, to never criticize Bush or the Iraq policy? We have learned about Cheney's attempts to control the media from it, so maybe that's all it was: "don't write anything negative like this, or there will be consequences." The aftermath certainly doesn't make it worth it, though. Or maybe it does. Maybe the administration really does not care that she was leaked and maybe they have a good laugh and good scotch over it every night. I have no idea, but the whole thing reeks of nonsense.
Before the committee on Friday, Plame was asked to comment on Bush's statement that he would fire anyone invovled in the leak. Yet Karl Rove, who was involved, still works there. Even the question points to the way these committees are really powerless. There is nothing good that can come out of that question except criticism of Bush, and Plame, well, she jumped at the chance: "I believe it undermines the president's word." Fine. I believe so, too. But what good does the question do us in the first place? It points to the pupose of the entire hearing, which was NOT to determine governmental reforms regarding agents. That could have been done without the question. Instead, it just demonstrates that the Democrats were obviously using it as a springboard for criticism.
And that fact wastes everyone's time. It does nothing for governmental reform, nothing for the CIA, nothing for Valerie Plame, and nothing to help anyone. All it does it hurt the people in power.
Maybe that's enough, though. Before people can be ousted, they must be criticized. It's partly all just a publicity campaign. And then there's the fact that the story of Plame's appearance before the committee is on the front page of most major newspapers. Media stunts work, this tells me. People listen to them, they read about them, and those stories, hearings, blips inform their opinions. We all know that Bush represents all things Republican, especially considering the elected Republicans' loyalty to the president and the Iraq war.
It's NOW a Civil War?
Speaking of the Iraq war, I have to bring up an interesting little tidbit. I heard on the news the other day that the administration is now calling some parts of the Iraq war similar to a civil war. Alright! They're a bit late to the table, of course--some major newspapers adopted the term several months ago--but it interesting that they are changing their tune. What will the change do for them?
In all honesty, I think the move to calling it a civil war will help save their butts. People are furious at our involvement in Iraq, and they want them to pull out. But then there are the war sympathizers who say that it is our duty to win the war either because 1) we started it or 2) it will eventually keep us safe and make us safer to win. But those motives are only for a war against insurgents, not for intervening in a country's civil war. So calling it a civil war will gradually lead to the people's acceptance of our removal. It will become okay for us to leave Iraq because it's really just a civil war.
And we couldn't cause a civil war, right? Well, if you go back far enough, we certainly can. Cause and effect (or affect) is hard, as I always say. Go back far enough and you get to the butterfly effect, or the notion of "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," as wikipedia describes it. It's not just about math and the trajectories of wind. It's also about involvement in the world. We created the situation that allowed for the civil war in the first place. We ousted the government that was holding the place together and allowed the people to fight amongst themselves because we couldn't control them. Therefore, we are the cause of their civil war. It may be that it was brewing all along and simply supressed by Saddam Hussein, but we allowed to actually happen. So matter what we call it--a civil war or an insurgency--we caused it. And we're responsible.
Comments & Trackbacks
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...
Leave a comment