The Neocon War on Peace and Freedom, Part 1
by James Bovard, April 2004 (Posted February 18, 2004)

The main problem with Bush’s war on terrorism is that he has not attacked enough foreign regimes and not sufficiently trampled the privacy of the American people. Such is the thesis of David Frum, former speechwriter for President Bush, and Richard Perle, currently on the Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Board, co-authors of the new book The End of Evil: How to Win the War on Terror.

According to Frum and Perle, “Terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation’s great cause.... There is no middle way for Americans; it is victory or holocaust.” The terrorist threat is largely equated with the Muslim threat. Protecting Americans from terrorists requires toppling numerous Arab and Muslim regimes and compelling the reformation of much of Islam: “We must discredit and defeat the extremist Islamic ideology that justifies and sustains terrorism.”

No one will accuse Frum and Perle of a shortage of contempt. After a breathless summary of daily life in the Arab world, the authors declare, “This fetid environment nourishes the most venomous vermin in the Middle Eastern swamp.” The tone of The End of Evil brings to mind historian Thomas Macaulay’s quip on British poet laureate Robert Southey: “What theologians call the spiritual sins are his cardinal virtues — hatred, pride, and the insatiable thirst for vengeance.” The book contains more invocations of the Nazis than a Mel Brooks movie.

The book jacket identifies Frum as the “most influential thinker in the foreign-policy apparatus of the Administration of George W. Bush” and hails Perle as “the intellectual guru of the hard-line neoconservative movement in foreign policy.” Inside the book, Frum and Perle reveal that people who say neoconservatives have vast influence are anti-Semitic. This is typical of the perverse double standard that pervades The End of Evil.

This book is impossible to understand without recognizing the neoconservative concept of government. The key to ending evil, from Frum’s and Perle’s perspective, is to greatly increase the power of the federal government both at home and abroad. Government becomes the ultimate force for the good — and distrust of government is the ultimate proof of a lack of sophistication.

We will consider Frum-Perle prescriptions for unleashing government at home, and then consider their recommendations for foreign wars.
No privacy, no problem

According to Frum and Perle, the evil of fundamental Islam requires the quashing of American privacy. They recommend a vast expansion of government surveillance, calling for the revival of Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System), which Congress forced the Bush administration to abandon. Frum and Perle declare, “To the astonishment of the administration, TIPS provoked an outburst of anger and mockery.”

Yet, on this subject, as on every other civil-liberties issue, Frum and Perle offer no explanation of why people opposed the government. The feds sought to sign up an army of people to report almost anything — no clear guidelines were ever issued on what could be considered “suspicious” and worthy of being entered into someone’s federal dossier.

Homeland Security director Tom Ridge said that observers “might pick up a break in the certain rhythm or pattern of a community.” The feds aimed to enlist as many as 10 million people to watch other people’s “rhythms.” Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) denounced TIPS as a “snitch system” and warned,

Frum and Perle liked Operation TIPS in part because they believe good Americans must always be ready to “drop a dime” on Muslim neighbors, co-workers, or suspected fellow travelers:

The authors also advocate canceling the tax-exempt status of some American mosques and Muslim nonprofit groups.

Frum and Perle champion another surveillance monstrosity at least partially thwarted by Congress — a Total Information Awareness-type system to allow the government to compile dossiers on “an individual’s credit history, his recent movements, his immigration status and personal background, his age and sex, and a hundred other pieces of information.” Frum and Perle insist that the government can be trusted with such data because procedures could be developed to link the data to a specific name only if “probable cause” of criminal conduct exists. In other words, regardless of the vast temptation for political and bureaucratic abuse of such data, the authors blithely assume that government officials — at least in the future — will be angels.

Frum and Perle also call for a National ID card, including “biometric data, like fingerprints or retinal scans or DNA.” Again, they shrug off any concerns about how such a system could be used to sabotage people’s lives and privacy, asserting, “The victims of executive branch abuse will be able to sue the wrongdoers and collect damages; the victims of a mass terrorist attack will have no such recourse.” This would be hilarious except for the possibility that people who watch Fox News might actually believe such a remedy exists.

The book’s discussion of the USA PATRIOT Act appears to rely heavily on a list of Justice Department talking points. Regarding wiretaps of email, the talking points assert that the PATRIOT Act sets “exactly the same standard that governs the wiretapping of telephones.” Email wiretaps are now carried out with a surveillance system created by the FBI, lovingly named Carnivore. Carnivore is contained in a black box that the FBI compels Internet service providers (ISPs) to attach to their operating system. Though a Carnivore tap might be imposed to target a single person, Carnivore can automatically impound the email of all the customers using that ISP. The ACLU’s Barry Steinhardt observed,

The PATRIOT Act puts email wiretaps on automatic pilot. An FBI agent or government lawyer need only certify to a judge on the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the information sought is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation” to get permission to install Carnivore.

Judges have no discretion: they must approve wiretaps based on government agents’ unsubstantiated assertions. And, if past is prologue, there will be little or no oversight of how the FBI is using its new email vacuum.

Frum and Perle pooh-pooh concerns about the new intrusions: “The privacy of the American home is many millions of times more likely to be invaded by an e-mail spammer or a telemarketer than a federal agent.” But telemarketers do not conduct no-knock raids that leave innocent people dead, and spammers do not conduct mass secret arrests (followed by prison beatings), as did the feds after 9/11.

Perhaps most chillingly, Frum and Perle call for creation of a “domestic intelligence agency” to keep watch on people in America. At the time the CIA was created in the late 1940s, the agency was specifically prohibited from engaging in domestic surveillance because the example of the Gestapo was fresh in people’s minds. Now, half a century later, we are supposed to pretend that the government only goes after bad guys.
Terrorism and omnipotent government

Because of the way the book was slapped together (written in “high speed in high summer,” as Frum notes in the acknowledgments), it is sometimes difficult to understand how far the authors want the government to go. On pages 228–29, they write,

This appears to be a blanket endorsement of everything Lincoln did in the North during the Civil War — shutting down newspapers, suspending habeas corpus, arresting congressmen, effectively declaring martial law for the duration. When Frum and I recently debated on a San Francisco public radio station, he insisted that this passage referred to Confederate soldiers and enemy combatants. Yet there was nothing anywhere near this passage in the book dealing with either such category. Tom DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln, notes that the most credible estimates of the total number of Northerners Lincoln jailed or imprisoned range from 13,000 to 38,000.

It is difficult to tell whether some of the book’s comments on law enforcement are simply naive or are preying on readers’ ignorance. The authors sanguinely declare, “The FBI is essentially a police force, and like all good police forces it goes to great lengths to respect the constitutional rights of the suspects it investigates.” From the 1992 unconstitutional “shoot to kill” orders that spurred an FBI sniper to slay a mother holding a baby in a cabin door at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, to the 1993 tank-and-gas assault on civilians at Waco, to the FBI’s illegal delivery of hundreds of confidential files on Republicans to the Clinton White House, to the 1994 FBI sting operations that sought to destroy the daughter of Malcom X, to the FBI’s framing of an innocent security guard for a pipebomb explosion during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, to recent revelations that the FBI protected murderers who were informants in the Boston Irish Mafia and was complicit in sending four innocent men to prison for life on murder charges, the FBI has too often oppressed Americans and obstructed justice. But, in the post–9/11 world, good citizens are obliged to have bad memories.

Unlike some enthusiasts of Bush’s wars, Frum and Perle do not talk about temporary abridgments of privacy; instead, the new Über-Surveillance State will presumably be with us forever. In the middle of their parade of proposed new intrusions, the authors remind readers, “Americans are fighting to defend their liberty.” Since we are fighting for liberty, we should cheerfully abandon safeguards developed over hundreds of year to protect citizens from their rulers.
Endless war to purify religion

Frum and Perle’s domestic recommendations seem almost mellow compared with their foreign-policy prescriptions. They call for a war to the finish with “militant Islam” — which is sometimes identified as “fundamentalist Islam” and sometimes as “extremist Islam.” The terms are never lucidly defined, though it is a sure bet that there is plenty of evil in Islam.

Frum and Perle adore “street tough” lingo: “When it is in our power and our interest, we should toss dictators aside with no more compunction than a police sharpshooter feels when he downs a hostage-taker.” The authors confidently declare, “We must destroy regimes implicated in anti-American terrorism.” “Implicated” presumably includes simply saying nasty things about a government. As long as the United States can find some disgruntled exiles to tell lies about their former government (as happened in the case of some of the Iraqi exiles), then the United States automatically has the right to kill as many foreigners as necessary to topple the regime. As Frum and Perle make stark in their comments on Iraq, even false accusations against a foreign government are sufficient to justify an American invasion.

Paranoia is now the highest statecraft. “When in doubt, drop more bombs” seems to be the Frum-Perle rule of thumb. The illustrious authors declare, “Where intelligence is uncertain, prudent leaders will inevitably minimize risk by erring on the side of the worst plausible assumption. And rightly so.” In other words, if there is any doubt that a foreign nation might pose a threat to the United States, it would be irresponsible not to bomb that country into submission.

Frum and Perle were fiery advocates of going to war with Iraq. Perle famously predicted that the invasion would be a “cake-walk” for American soldiers — no fuss, no muss. There is not even a hint of remorse in this book for the fact that far more Americans have died in attempting to conquer Iraq than Perle promised. The book recounts a number of predictions by opponents of the war of events that did not come to pass — as if that somehow vindicates Perle’s false prediction. The swagger of the book’s portrayal of the Iraq issue is bizarre — since the book did not go to press until at least September 2003, at a time when the initial postwar euphoria had long since been replaced by widespread fears of a quagmire.

Frum and Perle scoff at those who doubt the transcendent benefits of the Iraq War:

Perhaps, since neither Perle nor Frum has any combat experience, they naturally think of war in terms of a child’s tantrum in a toy room. This is a peculiar phrase to characterize a campaign that has made hundreds of American widows and left more hundreds of American children fatherless. It wasn’t a “regime” that was thrown up against the wall: it was an army and a people and a government that were bombed and assaulted into submission.

Frum and Perle sound as if the physical impact of the Iraq war was almost as transient as the flicker of a TV screen: “A visitor who walked through Baghdad in June would scarcely know that the city had been bombed in March.” Hundreds of buildings had been destroyed and at least one residential neighborhood was bombed to smithereens (on the basis of a false tip that Saddam was there). The Los Angeles Times surveyed hospitals in and around the capital and concluded in mid May 2003 that between 1,700 and 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the battle of Baghdad; more than 8,000 Iraqi civilians were wounded.

"Rome established a republic in 509 B.C. The Senators who ruled the city were elected by popular vote, but Roman law restricted what they could do. As a result, the people were free, and most of them prospered. With the passage of time, however, a ruling class evolved and began using the Senate to pursue their expansionist agenda. A series of foreign wars ensued which enriched the oligarchy and impoverished the people. Those who acquired wealth purchased vast tracts of land and farmed them with slaves captured in battle. Small farmers couldn't compete with them, and they were forced to sell their land. Class warfare broke out, and the power of the State was expanded to control the populace. The right to vote was extended to promote democracy and quiet dissent. The oligarchy began fighting among themselves for positions of power, which led to ever increasing chaos. Eventually Augustus Caesar intervened and replaced the Roman Republic with the Roman Empire."
(Encyclopedia Americana Volume 23, pp. 665-69.)

"Leftist critique? You might look smarter in public if you knew what you were talking about before you typed. Bovard is as opposite of a leftist one could be."

Oh please. Sure, Bovard is bipartisan in a libertarian sense, but this screed on foreign and domestic security policy is straight out of the far left playbook. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

"I also noticed you skipped the domestic surveillance bit..."

skipped for the sake of brevity only. I chose to focus on the more significant bit - which I noticed you completely dodged. If we're all dead, there isn't much to surveille, is there?

Show me one actual case of abuse of Patriot Act powers. Just one. Cite one single case filed by the ACLU against the Justice Department for Patriot Act invasion of civil rights. Just one!

How many American lives is the theoretic sanctity of your library records worth? Would you sacrifice your own children on the alter of political correctness, or only other people's children? Mine, perhaps?

You seem to act as if the war against Radical Islam (enough with the euphemisms folks; let's call a spade a spade) has no bearing upon or relation to the "domestic surveillance" you fear-monger with.

Are you one of those who also castigates the Bush administration for failing to "connect the dots" to prevent 9/11?

What exactly is your view of the war we're in? Are we even in a war? If you think not, can you address my assertions otherwise from my previous post? If you aren't in denial, how then do you suggest we fight it?

"If only those nasty Jews would just up and die quietly, all our troubles would be over."

Yup, it's them thar

JOOOOOZ!

What a hateful little rant. By God, I bet that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is in the footnotes.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

U-89,

You responded angrily to your position, and the position of this author, being called "leftist" by some on this forum.

While it's true that you and the author are not traditional leftists, I think it's about time that people began realizing that political ideology is NOT linear, but circular. That's why you have leftists like Chomsky in agreement with rightists like Buchanan when it comes to the War on Terror. You and the author of thi piece, represent the lunatic fringe of the libertarian right...I know, I myself am moderatley libertarian and I recognize what happens when that ideology is carried behind its ideological boundaries, as you are doing in this thread.

The truth is that when ideology moves to far right, you eventually overlap with ideology that has moved too far left, hence Stalin and Hitler, one Marxist and one Facist in theory, become essentially one and the same in PRACTICE.

And this is the case with guys like you and your opposition to Bush and his LOGICAL foreign policy agenda...either that or I'm giving you too much credit and you're simply a garden variety anti-Semite as opposed to an ideological extremist.

Bovard's apparent point being that Islam is not what Frum says it is. Bovard is full of crap. To see that this is true, I show you Exhibit 1:

I stopped reading at that point. Why waste time on a guy who can't even admit something as obviously true as that the salamikazes come from a toxic culture?

r9etb,

Isn't that picture sad? What's even sadder is that a large portion of the American public fails to recognize the ugly facts concerning Islamic culture. It's NOT just the extremists, the rank and file Muslims have serious cultural flaws that produce widespread anger and eventually leads to violence. To deny this is, like Samuel L. Jackson said in "Pulp Fiction" is to "walk with shepherd"

Well my eyes are WIDE OPEN...

The French were condemned for their nation's behavior and this is perfectly justifiable. If blacks or Jews traveled the world the organizing coalitions against us, or promoting their interests at our nation's expense, then all of the "racism" would be justified, and, I suspect, allowed on this forum.

And if France wants to create a coalition against our interests, they should get used to being run over by a steam roller. Why should the USA tolerate the actions of that sh*tty little country?

"You're still evading the issue."

I'm evading nothing; you simply hadn't asked me the question yet. :-)

"Here's a nice, no clintonizing, YES-NO question: Do you agree with the Frum-Pearle call for a mandatory National ID card?"

Yes, in the absense of any other coherent alternative. Do I wish it weren't necessary? Of course!

But in reality, the law-abiding among us already have national identification, via our social security registration, employment records, drivers licenses, tax records, etc. In today's world of open borders, political correctness, and easy worldwide transportation, the lack of a coherent, encompassing method of identification serves only to provide cover to those that are here for nefarious purposes. Now why would you want that?

Now, let's see if you can answer without a dodge: do you have an alternative, besides denial of the problem?

Domestic surveillance, national ID cards, forfeiture of our rights at home, and a neverending war against militant Islam, which just coincidently happens to be any country that might possibly challenge or pose a threat to Israel...these prescriptions from Perle and Frum hale from the extreme wing of neocon idiology - fascism and big government are fine with them as long as they are the ones in charge. Frum was a Canadian citizen up until he was offered a job in this administration, and I find it particularly annoying when a former Canadian suggests we undermine our Bill of Rights and commit to endless war just so we can entertain his Zionist fantasy of wiping out Israel's enemies. Let these two jerks join the IDF instead of demanding American blood and treasure to be used as fodder to fullfill their extreme agenda.

the rank and file Muslims have serious cultural flaws that produce widespread anger and eventually leads to violence.

I'm not willing to go quite that far: I think most Muslims are just normal folks who want to be left alone. But at the same time, I will acknowledge that there is something about Islam such that, when violence does occur, it tends to turn out real foam-at-the-mouth salamikazes, and their bloodthirsty enthusiasms tend to excite the Islamic masses.

I think Iraq is a good example of this dynamic. And I think it's also a good example of what happens to Islam whenever it comes in contact with a confident Christian culture.

>You responded angrily

I try not to, believe me but it is very difficult to discuss issues around these parts when any challenge to policy is met with ad hominems and vicious slanders. I'd disagree with Perel and Frum if their names were Finney and McNalty and they were passionately attached to Ireland, Jew's and Israel have nothing to do with it. It is all a matter of principle and what is seen as wise policy and healthy for the nation versus what is understood to be reckless and risky to the nation.

The premise of ideology going in circular travels is limited. True the left and the right both could end up in totalitarian regimes dictating every aspect of life however libertarianism just doesn't fit into that equation because they do not use government to enforce their ideals. I know it's popular these days to call libertarians leftist however sloppy the notion is. It's a useful tool for denigrating ideas so conservatives will pay no heed.

Former Congressman Bob Barr was always a staunch conservative and now he is working with the ACLU on opposing the Patriot ACT does that make him a leftist? The US was allied with the Soviet Union to fight Germany. Did that make the US commies?

P.S. I really like how you operate "you're a lunatic on the fringe - I know because I'm a moderate." Well at least you were polite about it. More than I can say for a lot of the others. Nice try.

cordially,

>fascism and big government are fine with them as long as they are the ones in charge.

And the ones who get the big profits. Have you seen the news about Perle's investments based on his insider's knowledge and the bonuses he gets? If he was in the Clinton administration there'd be howls of outrage around here and special lists dedicated to documenting his activities.

There is no arguing with those who would happily submit to being a piece of government inventory, tagged and supervised like a common farm animal by their masters, and force others at gunpoint to do the same.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
Samuel Adams

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.