It’s always fun to learn the ways of a strange new people, and it could be said that’s what I’m doing here in DC. Part of the learning curve always includes making a faux pas or two, and I made one today. However, I am in no way sorry I did, for it taught me more than anything all week.

As I noted in this post, I was at the Center for American Progress to hear a panel of folks talk about the bureaucratic process and the spin up to the war with Iran. I’m disappointed to say it, but I didn’t really learn anything new. The highlights include a few points that Corrente readers will be familiar with, and which reinforce the picture we’ve been developing about the Bush administration and their warmongering, incompetent, arrogant ways. The panel of experts agreed that the war will come after the election, and mainly because of the cabal out of Cheney’s office.

Halperin, a very well qualified and long time Distric insider, spoke at length about the Army and the Air Force, and made an argument worth repeating. Essentially, he thinks it’s useful to view military support for the war as a result of rivalries between the two forces. Given that the Army is bogged down in Iraq and worried about defending Asia if the North Koreans get more belligerent, the Army leadership doesn’t support an invasion of Iran at this time. However, the Air Force, and key members of Congress with close ties to the corporations which make military hardware and provide pork/jobs to Congressional districts, are more excited about a bombing campaign. Halperin and Gard, a retired general who also spoke, agreed that what’s “important” to today’s military minds has more to do with proving which branch is toughest. It’s worth noting that both complained of the Army’s inability to come out of the Cold War mindset, and noted the disturbing lack of a proper counterinsurgent strategy or methodology.

Of course, all one has to do is read daily reports from Iraq to know this, but I digress…

Another point discussed by the whole panel had to do with the split in the administration. All panelists admitted it is a partial oversimplification, but still useful to think of two groups most responsible for foreign policy and (in)action with respect to troubled states. On the one hand there is Rice and her assistant Hill. They have and continue to attempt to find diplomatic solutions with nations like North Korea and Iran, and according to the panelists have had what could be termed partial success as a result of their efforts. On the other hand there is Cheney, Rummy and the NSC cabal, who apparently actively work to undermine whatever peace-minded diplomatic efforts of Rice and State at every turn. Most noteworthy in this part of the discussion: Cheney’s cabal is setting up European nations and the UN to “fail” with the whole song and dance about inspections, infractions and Security Council directives. We’ve all been right to call it Kabuki, and the nasty, deliberate way in which Cheney is playing a game with the UN speaks volumes about his character.

So the gist of the discussion, while overly verbose and often without reaching the critical points, is that if Cheney has his way, which is likely, we’ll see a bombing campaign sometime next year.

Most Corrente readers will respond with a “well, duh!” or a yawn, I have no doubt. FWIW, my money is on Cheney; I can’t really see Rice with the personal pull on the Hill to oppose the (not really Vice) President. I could go into some fun fantasy scenarios in which Rice could get the power to challenge Cheney, but I think that would be little more than daydreaming.

The more interesting part came with the Q&A. Once again I was the only blogger there; the New Republic, Woodrow Wilson Institute, Hudson Institute, and several area poli-sci/int’l studies departments were all represented and asked questions. I held off for the last, I like to see what other people think is important before making my queries. And so I was last, just coming in before the cute intern in a sharp suit waved the “five minutes” signal to the moderator.

I have to put what I am going to say in a little context for you. Obviously, I’m new in town, and so I wasn’t part of the friendly chats between audience members that took place before the panel started speaking. I did listen to what I could politely overhear, and like all company towns, I could tell that there is a core of regulars for the lecture and panel circuit in the area; they are friendly and familiar with one another. So of course I stood out, beyond being a fairly unusual looking person, I was also the youngest “professionally” dressed person there, obviously not a student, and importantly: the only person to have a computer on her lap. Plenty of folks had paper notepads, but no one but me seemed to have been part of the ’wi-fi liveblog’ movement. A couple of times during the talk I caught people turning around to look at me, with “who is that?” looks on their faces.

The nice thing about being in on this blogging thing early is that folks like this are not likely to have ever heard of this or most of the blogosphere (Hopefully they will, but I’m patient). So when it came time for me to ask my question, I think a lot of them took my “rookie moment” in the wrong context, which serves my purposes just fine.

Halperin and Gard both talked about Bush’s desire to “make his mark in history” as the “man who took out the axis of evil.” They were quite mocking of this, noting that Bush “isn’t doing so well with that,” and implying he was unlikely to ever do so. But they believe that Bush will use his last two years in office to attempt to finish that job. I was displeased at the seeming lack of outrage at this assesment by panel members; we’re not talking about Monopoly money and toy soldiers being used by Bush. A lot of good and innocent people will die if Cheney leads Bush down the path to another war, and the long term consequences are such that we will all pay, greatly, for at least a generation. I guess the Washingtonian elite are too jaded to be outraged anymore, still, it is disquieting to observe in person.

My question was about Bush and history, and an overlooked player in the panel’s talk. I asked if the panel had made an omission by not including China in the discussion of the likelihood of an invasion, or in the context of what pressure “the China people” in US bureauracracies would apply. To me it’s obviously important to consider: China has invested billions in Iran, and receives a significant plurality of its energy from that state. I hardly think they’ll sit quietly while Bush bombs all that, just as I know the kind of dramatic pressure they could apply (economically, financially, diplomatically) should they choose to punish us for an invasion. I didn’t really get a satisfactory answer; it seems neither the panel nor the “two factions” of the administration are thinking about this angle much.

The second part of my question got an answer that made getting up on four hours sleep worth it. I made reference to the Diullio article from years ago, when the now-infamous term “Mayberry Machiavellis” was coined. Diullio noted that administration officials were singularly unconcerned with history, and actively mocked liberals and Democrats for studying it while Republicans and Neocons went out and “made their own reality.” I also mentioned Bush’s own words, in which he responded to a question about the opinion of future historians of his administration with something akin to “we’ll all be dead then, who cares?” I asked the panelists if it was useful to consider Bush’s religious views, along with those of certain segments of the Air Force, as we analyzed the push to bomb and/or invade Iran.

The entire room laughed at Halperin’s response, which was slightly cutting and totally dismissive. He said that he’d never thought to “consider divinity” in policy analysis, and mockingingly suggested that perhaps someday other historians would be concerned with the question.

Now, don’t feel bad for me, gentle reader. I’m a big girl and my feelings weren’t hurt one bit by the outsider treatment. Indeed, I am truly grateful for the drop of the masque, and to have had a chance to perceive an unguarded moment on the part of the pundit class. For them, it was clear to me, “religious concerns” are so inconsequential as to be not even spoken of, let alone considered by “serious” thinkers. Religion, the laughter told me, is for the rubes and little people in flyover land. Everyone in the District understands that Kuo’s book is just the tip of the iceberg, and that the professional class of pols and pundits only speak of it when putting on a show for the hoi polloi. Not just the people in the room, but most especially Bush himself.

Now, this may or may not be interesting to you, but it fascinates me. Technically, I am one of those historians who Halperan believes will someday think about the intersection of Bush, religion and policy. Indeed, that day is today. And if I may be the overly educated snob I am, I have to point out that the pundits who don’t think critically and deeply about that intersection are failing to perceive the whole complex of the issues. Not because I disagree that Bush is not a believer, but because I think that (atheist? secular?) bureaucrats fail in their duty to understand why religion is critically important as “history unfolds.”

There are many reasons to critically take into account the force and use of religion when analyzing policy. A short list would include: identifying weak points in those who manipulate a religiously inclined population towards their goals (hypocrisy and disbelief can be exposed); understanding what motivates the fighting forces in a thinly veiled religious crusade (both Iranian and US troops); predicting and countering the narratives which are employed to gain support for an invasion; and properly contextualizing Bush’s desire to make a place in history as a “fighter of evil.” Ahem, the term “evil” isn’t exactly purely secular, and even if Bush doesn’t really believe a single line of the Bible, much of his ego is informed by constructions of greatness which stem from religious or quasi-religious history.

And one needn’t be a “true Christian” to hear Divine Voices, which Bush has admitted to on more than one occasion. When you’re a perpetually unchallenged, spoiled, egocentric sociopath, it’s easy to believe that you are/of some “higher power.”

But don’t take my word for it, ask the German Chancellor. Fake or real, religious language peppers Bush’s speech and is at least part of his consciousness of decision making. It’s all well and good to know that Bush puts on a show for the rubes, but it’s essential to also understand how a quasi-religious ideology informs his sense of being and purpose. Perhaps Bush is even manipulated by a more clever Cheney on this level; there are plenty of ways to make a stupid/egoistic man think he’s come up with an idea on his own, or that there are powerful motivations to specific action. If the panel is correct, we’re about to expand our Imperial Crusade to at least a bombing campaign of a much more powerful nation than any we’ve attacked in a long time. And at every turn, the religious element will prove to be at the very least important, if not downright essential. I’m just sorry it’s not fashionable in secular District circles to talk about that.