The Axis of Blunders - 2
3/9/07
by William Hessell

It is finally recognized by most observers, as discussed in an earlier commentary, that Pres. Bush's Axis of Evil speech in 2002 was a prelude to the government launching policies vis-a-vis the three prime nations in his Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) that have not only failed to meet their objectives but have been massively counter-productive and even disastrous in their effects.  While the administration has been very adept at side-stepping responsibility, and until recently even denied that their plans weren't progressing as expected, the evidence is now so obvious that it can no longer be denied. While Bush must be held accountable for policies carried out in his name, the responsibility for the sequence of blunders committed under his authorization must be shared with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with major assist from their prime advisors and cohorts, neocons such as Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith.  Together, they seemed to constitute what may now be called, unfortunately and pejoratively, an Axis of Blunderers.

How could our foreign policy go so far astray?  We were clearly the world leader, having a well-established track record of collaborating with allies, finessing issues, and exerting our power in restrained and diplomatic ways wherever possible.  That all was massively challenged by the 9/11 terrorist attack on us in 2001.  The vast majority of the world was with us after that attack, and supported our war on terrorism when it was targeted at those most responsible for 9/11.  Even many Muslim nations were fully supportive of our endeavors.  But then, that all changed.  The administration greatly expanded their focus, and massively extended their "war on terror".  Bush's Axis of Evil speech was an obvious public signal that this shift was occurring.  Why this shift was promoted and undertaken by those mentioned above will be examined from many perspectives, and a definitive clarification hopefully will emerge.  In the meantime, the best guess is that those advising Bush, from Cheney on down, were highly influenced by the position paper written and circulated by neoconservatives in the early 1990's, which laid out a plan for the United States to use their newly-found sole superpower status to establish a new world order, especially in the Middle East.  The 9/11 attack, and the resulting war on terrorism, was perhaps taken as an ideal opportunity to implement that plan fully, regardless of the cost and mindless of the subterfuge necessary to gain approval for the radical steps involved.  What followed is known,  constituting a very unfortunate chapter in American diplomatic history and adding to the already all too tragic history of the Middle East.  Are we ready to bring this particular chapter to a close, and hopefully explore more viable ways of dealing with the power struggles that exist in that region and in the world?  The debates going on currently in Congress could not be more important.  Rumsfeld is gone, Bush has little if any political capital to spend to implement his policies,  the neocons have disappeared back into their think tanks,  and Chaney has been wounded and exerts only a shadow of his previous influence, but Bush is still is control and his judgment has been found to be very suspect.  Only time will tell what will happen until the next election.