President Obama called for support for his Afghan troop surge early this month. The following day, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke pleaded for Senate reappointment. Clearly, they both have relied on secrecy.
By its nature, politics is shrouded in secrecy. Rulers and politicians have gained mass support for their policies through a combination of inspiration, payment and coercion.
Often, however, declaration of the true nature of most political strategies would forewarn opposing forces or inspire little mass domestic support or both. Therefore, politicians usually put forward "good" reasons to justify their actions. Unfortunately, these good reasons are most often camouflage for the real reasons for which they act.
In a totalitarian state, rulers can rely heavily on coercion. In a democracy, the greater weight must be given to persuasion. When a large number of people are informed, inspiration becomes ever more important. In an educated democracy, especially one with access to the Internet, the greatest possible weight must be given to inspiration. Leaders who ignore this risk failure.
Obama's speech was so boring and uninspiring that even impassioned West Point cadets could barely stay awake. Most amazingly, in order to please his left wing, the president gave a finite date for the start of withdrawals. This was a bombshell to local Afghan allies and a beacon of hope for our enemies. It assured the virtual failure of all efforts in Afghanization. It appeared amazing if, indeed, Afghanization ever was our real aim.
President Bush enjoyed strong international, domestic and moral support for his initial attack on the Taliban. But he had little support for maintaining an army of occupation under the banners of democratization or Afghanization. But was this his real aim?
Bush enjoyed very little non-Anglo-Saxon international support for his attack on Iraq. The initial "good" reason was the nuclear emasculation of Iraq. Subsequently, this morphed into "regime change" and, later, to the establishment of democracy in a country that had never known it.
People remain confused as to the real reason for the invasion. It was an invasion that provided a home run to the recruitment of Islamic terrorists. It cost an estimated $3 trillion, including long-term medical expenses, and claimed more than 250,000 lives, mostly civilian.
Many commentators, including this writer, have been highly critical of the conduct of these two wars. But in war, it would be the height of stupidity to declare a true strategy to the enemy. As Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, "In war, truth is so precious that she should be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Commentators should acknowledge that rarely are they privy to the real reasons for major military attacks.
For example, what if America and her Anglo-Saxon allies had determined that the overriding risk to world peace was the nuclear threat of extremist Islamic governments in Iran and Pakistan⢠Then, utilizing political excuses to pre-position military forces that both surround Iran and flank Pakistan might not appear so foolhardy.
This might sound outlandish, but in royal politique it might be almost reasonable. However, if it were true, it would draw little domestic, let alone international, support. One way to build support is to surround such an unpopular truth with a bodyguard of lies.
Central banking has long operated in secret. There is a valid argument that so-called "open market operations" and their background decision-making should be attended by mystery.
But the secret disposal of trillions of dollars borrowed in the name of the public to salvage reckless bankers and even nonbanks, such as AIG, is quite another matter. This especially when it enables those banks subsequently to pay themselves billions of dollars in bonuses.
Ben Bernanke became political, sometimes appearing even to act as an arm of the administration. Nevertheless, he is correct to fight for the Fed's political independence but very wrong in shielding it from open congressional audit.
Rescuing reckless banks is about restoring financial confidence, not war. There is no reason to surround central banking with a bodyguard of lies or secrecy that may conceal political fraud.
Americans are now well informed. In peacetime, success is unlikely to follow when democratic leaders rely on coercion and lies while failing to inspire.
