Criticism and bibliography. Reviews

New York-London-Toronto-Sydney: Simon & Schuster, 2004, 349 p.*

Among the large number of American publications that show the "kitchen" of how politics is done in Washington in our time, the book of the famous writer and essayist from the Wall Street Journal Ron Suskind draws attention to itself. It rightfully occupies a special place among a number of monographs that sharply criticize the foreign policy of George W. Bush, especially in relation to Iraq. Its publication in January 2004 was a rather unpleasant surprise for Republican George W. Bush, who was preparing for a decisive battle with the Democrats for the post of president of the United States.

The book can really be called a bomb planted under the Republican administration at the start of the presidential race. The author focuses on the fate of Paul O'Neill, a well-known economist and politician, whom J. R. R. Tolkien wrote in his memoir. Bush appointed him to the post of Treasury Secretary, and later dismissed him with a scandal because of disagreements with him on a number of issues of foreign and domestic policy,in particular tax. Due to the fact that the book touches on burning topics, it was declared the famous magazine "Forbes" "bestseller of the year".

O'Neill was a valuable find for Suskind not only as a convenient opportunity to once again turn to the peculiarities of the political "cuisine" of Washington. Due to his official position, he had access to information that the media, as a rule, do not have. The disgraced official willingly provided the author of the book with more than 19 thousand documents, including secret transcripts of meetings of the National Security Council (NSC). In addition, O'Neill shared with the journalist personal impressions taken from frequent conversations with the president and his advisers.

The facts that R. Suskind became the owner of were so shocking that he chose to refrain from any comments in his book. The author builds the narrative in the form of a fascinating chronicle, tracking almost every week of O'Neill's tenure as minister. Slowly introducing readers to the workings of the state apparatus in 2001-2002, the author leads them to the idea that a Bush victory in the upcoming elections will be a real disaster for America.

In outlining the biography of his hero, Suskind pays considerable attention to the Iraqi theme. The revelations of O'Neill, who participated in its discussion at the NSC meetings, demonstrate the inconsistency of the president's arguments, when the overthrow of the Hussein regime was justified by protecting the national interests of the United States.

According to the ex-minister, Bush was obsessed with the maniacal idea of war with Iraq from the moment he came to the White House, and not after September 11, 2001, as is commonly believed. This "fix idea" along with the belief in the need for total tax cuts was, in fact, a" trick " of Bush. A strong proponent of the concept of preemption, he believed that the war would serve as a good lesson for other countries determined to oppose Washington ^.1

The former minister emphasizes that active preparations for the military campaign began in February 2001. It was then that Bush set the administration the task of developing a set of measures designed to ensure the dismantling of the Baathist regime as soon as possible. D. Rumsfield was charged with considering the possibility of using local rebel groups from among the Shiites and Kurds in combat operations. Secretary of State K. Powell was supposed to draft a tougher system of sanctions aimed at:

* R. Suskind. Loyalty price. George W. Bush, the White House, and Paul O'Neill's epiphany. New York-London-Toronto-Sydney: Simon & Schuster, 2004. 349 p.

¹ Suskind's book does not mention any other motivations for the invasion of Iraq that, more than the idea of a pre-emptive war, influenced the Bush administration's decision to launch a military campaign. See on this topic: Khazanov A.M. Vooinu proti Irak SSHA zagumali dlego [The US conceived the war against Iraq long ago] / / Krushenie saddamovskogo Irak i rektsiya stran Azii / Ed. by A.M. Khazanov, Sh. M. Munchaev. Moscow, 2003. pp. 2-3.

page 190

the final economic blockade of Iraq. As for O'Neill himself, he was assigned to analyze the problems associated with the financial strangulation of the Hussein regime through pressure on banks in Jordan and Syria.

A serious obstacle to the implementation of the military action, as the Suskind informant sarcastically notes, was the lack of a suitable reason that makes it legitimate. Members of the National Security Council had some difficulties when it came to formulating the official reason for the upcoming occupation of Iraq. D. Rumsfield cynically believed that such a reason could well be the destruction of an American plane in one of the many skirmishes between US fighters and Iraqi air defenses. His second-in-command, J. Wolfowitz, in turn, suggested organizing armed actions by the Iraqi opposition and, on this basis, switching to a policy of open intervention.

Suskind's book contains facts that clearly show that the head of the White House and his entourage were least interested in finding out the extent to which Iraq was "advanced" in developing weapons of mass destruction. So O'Neill witnessed the NSC members ' eagerness to pounce on a blurry photograph of an Iraqi industrial site provided by CIA Director J. R. R. Tolkien. Shadow as an image of a secret chemical plant. The Finance Minister was the only skeptic who said that the photo could not be considered evidence against Saddam. "In my 23 months in the US administration, I have not seen anything that could be called evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were only guesses and unsubstantiated claims, which has nothing to do with the real evidence, " O'Neill admits.

R. Suskind writes that O'Neill was most outraged by the reaction of Bush's advisers to any manifestation of disagreement with their position on Iraq. All the arguments against the war were broken down by a categorical rejection of the very idea that the Iraqi problem could be solved by peaceful means.

Among the ideological opponents of the president, Powell occupied a leading place. He opposed not only the invasion of Iraq, but also an immediate change in the sanctions regime. The Secretary of State argued that their tightening would inevitably lead to an increase in anti-American sentiment among Iraqis and strengthen Saddam's domestic political position. As a supporter of the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1284, Powell vigorously opposed a military solution to the Iraqi problem and repeatedly said at the National Security Council meetings in February 2001 that conducting regular inspections under the auspices of the IAEA in exchange for granting Iraq freedom to import consumer goods is the only correct way. But his objections were "the voice of one crying in the wilderness."

Suskind's book explores in some detail the reasons for the White House's refusal to invade Iraq immediately after the tragic events of September 11. As we know from the revelations of administration officials who were in close contact with the president, Bush intended to immediately start a war, using the fight against international terrorism as a cover ^.2 O'Neill points out that such an idea began to be developed by Pentagon leaders already during an emergency meeting of the National Security Council on September 12 at Andrews Air Force Base. However, despite Rumsfield's insistence, the president was forced to agree with the Secretary of State, who believed that the American people would not understand the motives of the war with Iraq when only the name of W. bin Laden was on everyone's lips.

O'Neill believes that the events of September marked the beginning of a clear division in the Bush entourage, which had previously been a united front in support of urgent measures to overthrow Hussein. While some politicians (such as Tennet) suggested that the fight against the Taliban, the patron of al - Qaeda, should be immediately switched, others believed that the focus should continue to be on Iraq. The ex-minister provided Suskind with a transcript of Wolfowitz's speech at the NSC meeting on September 13. It emphasized the danger of American troops becoming entangled in the Afghan conflict, and at the same time

² In this regard, the memoirs of the Assistant to the President for the security of computer networks of the United States, R. R. Tolkien, are particularly valuable evidence. Кларка (Clarke R.A. Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. N.Y.: Free Press, 2004. P. 32). For the review of this book by V. A. Ushakov and A.M. Khazanov, see: Orient (Oriens). 2005. N 2. pp. 199-201.

page 191

The emphasis was placed on the extreme unpopularity of the Ba'athist regime among Iraqis, who allegedly expected to be freed from tyranny any day now. Based on his more than speculative analysis, Wolfowitz proclaimed: if, Mr. President, you want to do anything against Saddam, he is entirely in your hands!

O'Neill told a reporter about his impression of Wolfowitz's speech: "I was thinking hard about the words I just said. It seemed to me that there was some kind of ridiculous substitution of the topic of our discussion-Iraq is in no way connected with W. bin Laden and is not the cause of the recent upheaval. One could not help but compare it to a book in which, due to the carelessness of the bookbinder, pages were inserted that had nothing to do with its content" (p.188).

The problem of Iraq is not the main theme of Suskind's book. The author's goal is nothing less than to prove Bush's inconsistency with his position. He cites O'Neill's thesis, according to which Bush has qualities that make him completely unfit to perform the duties of a top official.

First of all, O'Neill points out the helplessness of the president in organizing the decision-making process. The former minister told Suskind a lot of facts that indicate that the president behaves like a blind man among the deaf at cabinet meetings, that is, he reveals a lack of understanding of the reports of subordinates, who, in turn, try to guess what the boss will take into his head.

O'Neill had already come to understand that the President was unlikely to play a constructive role in shaping strategy on certain key issues.

Bush's blatant incompetence, Suskind points out, based on the revelations of his hero, extended to the field of foreign policy. Hence the president's numerous blunders on the diplomatic front. As a vivid example, the author cites Bush's speech to South Korean leader Kim Dae-jung during his visit to Washington. Bush stressed that he was ready to abide by all of America's agreements with North Korea, which caused Dae - jung confusion, since there was only one agreement between the United States and Pyongyang-the 1994 agreement on freezing North Korea's nuclear program. O'Neill, who witnessed Bush's unforgivable "blunder", had to work hard to dispel Kim Dae Joon's bewilderment.

Suskind and O'Neill point out that Bush's incompetence and dogmatism have turned him into a puppet of his aides. The president was particularly influenced by well-known neoconservatives-Economic adviser L. Lindsey and head of the Speechwriters Department K. McCarthy. Rove. O'Neill comes to a sad conclusion: "When it became obvious to many in the administration itself that its head had surrendered his powers to others, he was already in thrall to the ideological dogmas that are a distinctive feature of conservative thinking."

After the publication of R. Suskind's book, Republicans accused O'Neill of trying to take revenge on the Bush team for his dismissal because he disagreed with his proposed program of tax cuts and pension reorganization. At the same time, there were enough representatives in the American ruling elite who paid attention to O'Neill's confessions. Republican David Kucinich has publicly acknowledged the book's significance, saying it opens Americans ' eyes to the essence of the Iraq War and the hypocrisy of Bush's entourage. However, not only this circumstance explains such a sharp divergence of opinions in the camp of Republicans. Suskind's book is one of the few that has raised an extremely burning topic - the subordination of United States foreign policy to crude ideologemes that have replaced an unbiased analysis of the international situation, which is fraught with far-reaching consequences.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that Bush's "predilection" for Iraq, of course, has special reasons. First of all, they are connected with the oil of this country. It is known that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world (16 billion tons), the United States now produces 240 million tons, and imports 600 million, i.e. America is seriously dependent on oil imports from other countries.

In addition, Iraq has long been on the list of countries of the so-called axis of evil, to which the president also included Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and North Korea. In Iraq, a branch of the international terrorist organization Al-Qaeda was active, led by the number one Palestinian terrorist Abu Musabal al-Zarqawi, whom the Americans did not recognize-

page 192

gut to catch. The fact that former US President George H. W. Bush was assassinated in Kuwait in 1993 should not be discounted. The attack was prevented, but it turned out that Saddam Hussein ordered it.

The US war against Iraq has already cost the lives of several thousand American soldiers killed in battles with local Iraqi insurgents, the US is bogged down in this war, and Bush cannot even give an exact date for withdrawing troops from Iraq in order to somehow put an end to an adventure that has nothing to do with protecting the interests of the American people. author of the book.

Permanent link to this publication: