[NYTr] The Dangers of a Cornered George Bush: Devastating Study

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Info Clearing House - Jul 27, 207
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18081.htm


Dangers of a Cornered George Bush

by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity 
and Dr. Justin Frank

The “new” strategy of surging troops in Baghdad has simply wasted more
lives and bought some time for the president. His strategy boils down
to keeping as many of our soldiers engaged as possible, in order to
stave off definitive defeat in Iraq before January 2009.

Bush is commander in chief, but Congress must approve funding for the
war, and its patience is running out. The war – and the polls – are
going so badly that it is no longer a sure thing that the
administration will be able to fund continuance of the war.

There is an outside chance Congress will succeed in forcing a pullout
starting in the next several months. What would the president likely do
in reaction to that slap in the face?

What would he do if the Resistance succeeded in mounting a large attack
on U.S. facilities in the Green Zone or elsewhere in Iraq? How would he
react if Israel mounted a preemptive attack on the nuclear-related
facilities in Iran and wider war ensued?

Applied Psychoanalysis

The answers to such questions depend on a host of factors for which
intelligence analysts use a variety of tools. One such tool involves
applying the principles of psychoanalysis to acquire insights into the
minds of key leaders, with an eye to facilitating predictions as to how
they might react in certain circumstances.

For U.S. intelligence, this common-law marriage of psychoanalysis and
intelligence work dates back to the early 1940s, when CIA’s forerunner,
the Office of Strategic Services commissioned two studies of Adolf
Hitler.

We call such assessments “at-a-distance leader personality
assessments.” Many were quite useful. VIPS found the 2004 book Bush on
the Couch, by Washington psychiatrist Justin Frank, MD, a very helpful
assessment in this genre. We now have two more years of experience of
observing Bush closely.

As we watched the pressure build on President Bush, looked toward the
additional challenges we expect him to face over the next 18 months,
and pondered his tendency to disregard the law and the Constitution, we
felt very much in need of professional help in trying to estimate what
kinds of decisions he is likely to make.

Dr. Frank, it turned out, had been thinking along the same lines, when
we asked to meet with him just three weeks ago. What follows is a
collaborative Frank-VIPS effort, with the psychological insights
volunteered by Dr. Frank, who shares the imperative we feel to draw on
all disciplines to assess what courses of action President George W.
Bush is likely to decide upon in reacting to reverse after reverse in
the coming months.

Parental discretion advised. The outlook is not only somber but
potentially violent—and includes all manner of threats born of George
W. Bush’s mental state (as well as the unusual relationship he has with
his vice president).

Things are going to hell in a hand basket for this administration, and
Bush/Cheney have shown a willingness to act in extra-Constitutional
ways, as they see fit.

While Bush and his advisers make a fetish of it, he is nonetheless
commander in chief of the armed forces and the question becomes how he
might feel justified in using them and is there still any restraining
force—any checks on the increasing power of the executive in our
three-branch government.

We have a president whose psychological makeup inclines him to do as he
pleases. Because Congress has been cowed, and the judiciary stacked
with loyalists, he has gotten away with it—so far.

But the polls show growing discontent among the people, especially over
the war in Iraq. Congress, too, is starting to challenge the executive,
as it should—but slowly, slower than it should. The way things are
moving, there is infinite opportunity to diddle and dodge—in effect
conducting business pretty much as usual over the next 18 months.

Could Start Another War...

Meanwhile, the president may well feel free to start another war, with
little reference to the Congress or the UN, against Iran.

The commander of CENTO forces, Admiral William Fallon is quoted as
having said we “will not go to war with Iran on my watch.” Tough words;
but should the president order an attack on Iran, chances are Fallon
and others will do what they are accustomed to doing, salute smartly
and carry out orders, UNLESS they show more regard for the U.S.
Constitution than the president does.

There is an orderly remedy written into the Constitution aimed at
preventing a president from usurping the power of the people and acting
like a king; the process, of course, is impeachment.

The usual focus on impeachment is on abuses of the past, and a
compelling case can surely be made. We believe an equally compelling
incentive can be seen in looking toward the next 18 months.

In this paper, we are primarily concerned about what future
misadventures are likely if this administration is not somehow held to
account; that is, if Bush and Cheney are not removed from office.

Unless Checked

If the constitutional process of impeachment is under way when
President Bush orders our military to begin a war against Iran, there
is a good chance that, rather than salute like automatons and start
World War III, our senior military would find a way to prevent more
carnage until such time as the representatives of the people in the
House have spoken.

This administration’s capacity for mischief would not end until
conviction in the Senate. But initiating the impeachment process
appears to be the only way to launch a shot across the bow of this
particular ship of state. For it is captained by a president with a
psychological makeup likely to lead to new misadventures likely to end
in a ship wreck unless the Constitution is brought alongside and a new
pilot boarded.

We are grateful that Dr. Frank agreed to collaborate with us and to
issue under VIPS auspices the psychological assessment that follows.

Discussion of the three scenarios after his profiling of President Bush
was very much a collaborative exercise aimed at applying Frank’s
insights to contingencies our president may have to address before he
leaves office. Our conclusions are, of necessity, speculative—and,
sorry, scary.

The Assessment of Dr. Frank:

If a patient came into my consulting room missing an arm, the first
question I would ask is, “What happened to your arm?” The same would be
true for a patient who has no guilt, no conscience. I would want to
know what happened to it.

No Conscience

George W. Bush is without conscience, and it would require a lengthy
series of clinical sessions to find out what happened to it. By
identifying himself as all good and on the side of right, he has been
able to vanquish any guilt, any sense of doing wrong.

In Bush on the Couch I gave examples illustrating that remarkable lack
of conscience. From his youthful days blowing up frogs with
firecrackers to his unapologetic public endorsement of torture, there
has been no change.

Observers are gradually becoming aware of this fundamental deficit. For
example, after watching the president’s press conference on July 12,
Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan wrote, “He doesn't seem to
be suffering, which is jarring. Presidents in great enterprises that
are going badly suffer: Lincoln, LBJ with his head in his hands. Why
doesn't Mr. Bush?”

No Shame

George W. Bush seems also to be without shame. He expresses no regret
or embarrassment about his failure to help Katrina victims, or to tell
the truth. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, whether it
be “stay the course” or “I’ve never been about ‘stay the course.’” He
does whatever he wants.

He lies—not just to us, but to himself as well. What makes lying so
easy for Bush is his contempt—for language, for law, and for anybody
who dares question him.

That he could say so baldly that he’d never been about “stay the
course” is bone chilling. So his words mean nothing. That is very
important for people to understand.

Fear of Humiliation

Despite having no shame, Bush has a profound fear of failure and
humiliation. He defends himself from this by any means at his
disposal—most frequently with indifference or contempt.

He will flinch only if directly confronted about being a failure or a
liar. Otherwise world events are enough removed from him that he can
spin them into his intact defense system.

This deep fear helps to explain his relentlessly escalating attacks on
others, his bullying, and his use of nicknames to put people down.
There is fear of being found out not to be as big in every way as his
father.

What a burden to have to face his many inadequacies—now held up to the
light of day—whether it is his difficulty in speaking, thinking,
reading, managing anxiety, or making good decisions. He will not
change, because for him change means humiliating collapse. He is very
fearful of public exposure of his many inadequacies.

Contempt for Truth?

Contempt itself is a defense, a form of self-protection, which helps
Bush appear at ease and relaxed—at least to big fans like New York
Times columnist David Brooks.

The president’s contempt defense protects his belief system, a system
he clings to as if his beliefs were well-researched facts. His
pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information
woven into what he asserts is the whole truth.

What gets lost in this process is growth—the George W. Bush of 2007 is
exactly the same as the one of 2001. Helen Thomas has said that of all
the presidents she has covered over the years, Bush is the least
changed by his job, by his experience. This is why there is no
possibility of dialogue or reasoning with him.

Sadistic

His certitude that he is right gives him carte blanche for destructive
behavior. He has always had a sadistic streak: from blowing up frogs,
to shooting his siblings with a b-b-gun, to branding fraternity pledges
with white-hot coat hangers.

His comfort with cruelty is one reason he can be so jocular with
reporters when talking about American casualties in Iraq. Instead of
seeing a president in anguish, we watch him publicly joking about the
absence of “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, in the vain search
for which so many young Americans died.

Break It!

Bush likes to break things, needs to break things. And this is most
shockingly seen in how he is systematically destroying our armed forces.

In the early days of the Iraq invasion he refused to approve the large
number of troop the generals said were needed in order to try to invade
and pacify Iraq and acquiesced in the firing of any general who
disagreed.

He turned a blind eye to giving the troops proper equipment and cut
funding for needed health care. Health care and other social programs
have one thing in common: they are paid for by public funds.

It may well be that, unconsciously, the government represents his
neglectful parents, and those helped by the government represent the
siblings he resents. If George W. Bush wanted to destroy his own
family, he could scarcely have done better. Thanks to him, no Bush is
likely to be elected to high office for generations to come.

Where Does This Leave Us?

It leaves us with a regressed president who needs to protect himself
more than ever from diminishment, humiliation, and collapse. He is so
busy trying to manage his own anxiety that he has little capacity left
to attend to national and world problems.

And so, we are left with a president who cannot actually govern,
because he is incapable of reasoned thought in coping with events
outside his control, like those in the Middle East.

This makes it a monumental challenge—as urgent as it is difficult—not
only to get him to stop the carnage in the Middle East, but also to
prevent him from undertaking a new, perhaps even more disastrous
adventure—like going to war with Iran, in order to embellish the image
he so proudly created for himself after 9/11 as the commander in chief
of “the first war of the 21st century.”

Iran would make number three—all the compelling reasons against it
notwithstanding

* * *

Contingencies:

We will now attempt to put flesh on the discussion by positing and
examining scenarios that would force Bush to react, and applying the
observations above and other data to forecast what form that reaction
might take.

Outlined below are three illustrative contingencies, each of which
would pose a neuralgic threat to George W. Bush’s shaky self-esteem,
his over-determined efforts to stave off humiliation, and his unending
need for self-protection.

These are not seat-of-the-pants scenarios. Each of them is
possible—arguably, even probable. The importance of coming up with
educated guesses regarding Bush’s response BEFORE they occur is, we
hope, clear.

Scenario A: Destructive Attack on the Green Zone

The U.S. military is out in front of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and
other policymakers in Washington in seeing the hand of Iran’s
government behind “the enemy” in Iraq.

On July 26, the operational commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen.
Raymond Odierno, blamed the recent “significant improvement” in the
accuracy of mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone on “training
conducted inside Iran.” Odierno also repeated that roadside bombs are
being smuggled into Iraq from Iran.

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus warned that insurgents intend to “pull
off a variety of sensational attacks and grab the headlines to create a
‘mini-Tet.’” (Tet refers to the surprise country-wide offensive mounted
by the Vietnamese Communists in early 1968, which indicated to most
Americans that the war was lost.)

Attacks on the Green Zone have doubled in recent months. Despite this,
the senior military appear to be in denial with respect to the
vulnerability of the Green Zone—oblivious even to the reality that
mortar rounds and rocket fire have little respect for walled enclaves.

Anyone with a mortar and access to maps and images on Google can
calibrate fire to devastating effect—with or without training in Iran.
It is just a matter of time before mortar round or rocket takes out
part of the spanking new $600-million U.S. embassy together with people
working there or nearby.

And/or, the insurgents could conceivably mount a multi-point assault on
the zone and gain control of a couple of buildings and take
hostages—perhaps including senior diplomats and military officers.

Given what we think we know of George Bush, if there were an
embarrassing attack on U.S. installations in the Green Zone or some
other major U.S. facility, he would immediately order a retaliatory
series of air strikes, and let the bombs and missiles fall where they
may.

The reaction would come from deep within and would warn, in effect:
This is what you get if you try to make me look bad.

Scenario B: Israeli Attack on Nuclear Targets in Iran.

This would be madness and would elicit counterattacks from an Iran with
many viable options for significant retaliation. Nevertheless, Sen. Joe
Lieberman (D, Conn) and his namesake Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s
minister of strategic affairs, are openly calling for such strikes,
which would have to be on much more massive a scale than Israel’s
bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

For that attack in 1981, Cheney, a great fan of preemptive strikes,
congratulated the Israelis, even though the U.S. joined other UN
Security Council members in unanimously condemning the Israeli attack.

Five years ago, on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney became the first U.S. official
publicly to refer approvingly to the bombing of Osirak. And in an
interview two and a half years ago, on Inauguration Day 2005, Cheney
referred nonchalantly to the possibility that “the Israelis might well
decide to act first [to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities] and let
the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess
afterwards.”

One thing Cheney says is indisputably—if myopically—true: Bush has been
Israel’s best friend. In his speeches, he has fostered the false
impression that the U.S. is treaty-bound to defend Israel, should it
come under attack—as would be likely, were Israel to attack Iran.

With the U.S. Congress firmly in the Israeli camp, Cheney might see
little disincentive to giving a green-light wink to Israel and then let
the president “worry about cleaning up.”

Reporting from Seymour Hersh’s administration sources serve to
strengthen the impression shining through Bush’s speeches that he is
eager to strike Iran. But how to justify it?

Curiously, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear
capability, a study scheduled for completion early this year, has been
sent back several times—probably because its predictions are not as
alarmist as the warnings that Cheney and the Israelis are whispering
into the president’s ear.

Senior U.S. military officers have warned against the folly of
attacking Iran, but Cheney has shown himself, time and time again, able
to overrule the military.

But What if Impeachment Begins?

Is there nothing to rein in Bush and Cheney? It seems likely that only
if impeachment proceedings were under way would senior officers like
CENTCOM commander, Admiral William Fallon, be likely to parry an
unlawful order to start yet another war without the approval of
Congress and the UN.

With impeachment under way, such senior officers might be reminded that
all officers and national security officials swear an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States—NOT to protect and
defend the president.

It was a highly revealing moment when on July 11, former White House
political director Sara Taylor solemnly reminded the Senate Judiciary
Committee, that as a commissioned officer, “I took an oath and I take
that oath to the president very seriously.”

Committee chair Patrick Leahy had to remind Taylor: “We understand your
personal loyalty to President Bush. I appreciate you correcting that
your oath was not to the president, but to the Constitution.”

The most senior officers, military included, can get their loyalties
mixed up. And this is of transcendent importance in a context described
by Seymour Hersh: “These guys are scary as hell...you can’t use the
word ‘delusional,’ for it’s actually a medical term. Wacky. That’s a
fair word.”

One does not need psychoanalytic training to see that Bush and Cheney
do not care about facts, treaties (or the lack thereof), or other legal
niceties, unless it suits their purpose. This gives an even more
ominous ring to what Hersh is hearing from his sources.

If Israel attacks Iran, President Bush is likely to spring to Israel’s
defense, regardless of whether he was inside or outside the loop before
the attack; and the world will see a dangerously widened war in the
Middle East.

Psychologically, Bush would almost certainly need to join the attack,
mainly to sustain his illusion of safety and masculinity. And Cheney,
knowing that, would be pushing him hard on U.S. energy and other
perceived strategic interests.

Scenario C: Congress Cuts War Funding This Fall

We posit that Congress finally grows weary of the increasingly obvious
bait-and-switch, the “we-need-more-time” tactic, and cuts off all
funding except for that needed to bring the troops home.

The talk now is about getting a “meaningful” progress report in
November, because September is said to be too soon. The Iraqi
parliament is behaving much like its American counterpart by taking
August off. But our soldiers do not get a month-long hiatus from
constant danger.

It is clear even to the press that the surge has simply brought more
American deaths and an upsurge of insurgent attacks. What is less clear
is why Bush remains so positive. It is probably not just an act, but an
idée fixe he needs to hold onto tightly.

Since doubt is dangerous, we see a compensatory smile fixe on the face
of the president and other senior officials, dismissing any trace of
uncertainty or doubt.

If Congress cut off funding for war in Iraq, Bush might well cast about
for a casus belli to “justify” an attack on Iran.

Would the senior military again go along with orders for an unprovoked,
unconstitutional war on a country posing no threat to the U.S.? Hard to
say.

In this context, an ongoing impeachment process could provide welcome
evidence that influential members of Congress, like many senior
military officers, see through Bush’s need to strike out elsewhere.
Military commanders might think twice before saluting smartly and
executing an illegal order.

In such circumstances, Dick “it-won’t stop-us” Cheney, could be
expected to try to pull out all the stops. But if he, too, were in
danger of being impeached, uniformed military officers could
conceivably block administration plans.

There is only a remote chance that Defense Secretary Gates would be a
tempering voice in all this. Far more likely, he would smell in any
restrictive legislation traces of the Boland amendment, which he
assisted in circumventing during the Iran-Contra misadventure.

Petraeus ex Machina

With “David” or “General Petraeus” punctuating the president’s every
other sentence at recent press conferences, the script for September
seems clear. This is one four-star general with exquisite PR and
political acumen—pedigree and discipline the president can count on.

And with his nine rows of ribbons, he calls to mind the U.S. commander
in Saigon, Gen. William Westmoreland at a similar juncture in Vietnam
(after the Tet offensive when popular support dropped off rapidly).

It is virtually certain that Petraeus will press hard for more time and
more troops. Potemkin-style improvements will be used by Bush to
justify continuing the “new” surge strategy, with the calculation that
enough Democrats might be overcome by the fear of being charged with
“losing Iraq.”

In the past Bush seems to have bought Cheney’s “analysis” that
increased enemy attacks were signs of desperation. Hard as it is to
believe that Bush has not learned from that repeated experience, it is
at the same town possible to “misunderestimate” one’s capacity for
wooden-headedness, particularly with respect to someone with the
psychological makeup of our president.

He is extraordinarily adept at finding only rose-colored glasses to
help him see.

With Cheney egging him on from the wings of the “unitary executive,”
but Congress no longer bowing to that novel interpretation of the
Constitution, Bush will be sorely tempted to lash out in some violent
way, if further funding for the war is denied.

To do that effectively, he will need senior generals and admirals as
co-conspirators. It will be up to them to choose between career and
Constitution. All too often, in such circumstances, the tendency has
been to choose career.

Impeachment hearings, though, could encourage senior officers like
Admiral Fallon to pause long enough to remember that their oath is to
defend the Constitution, and that they are not required to follow
orders to start another war in order to stave off political and
personal disaster for the president and vice president.

Justin Frank, M.D.

With,

David MacMichael
Tom Maertens
Ray McGovern
Coleen Rowley

Steering Group
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity