Foreign Policy

The Distorted Worldview of Dick Cheney

| by Cato Institute

By Tim Lynch

Former vice president Richard Cheney gave his big address on national security (pdf)
over at AEI last week. He covered a lot of ground, but this passage,
I think, tells us quite a bit about Cheney’s worldview:

If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for
compassion had the power to move [al-Qaeda], the terrorists would long
ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American
government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether
foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in
awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all
along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for — our
unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they
see weakness and opportunity.

So we shouldn’t let the terrorists see us get “caught up in
arguments” about the wisdom of our foreign policy, about whether our
country should go to war, about our country’s treaty obligations, about
the parameters of government power under our Constitution? What is
this former vice president thinking?

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

Popular Video

A police officer saw a young black couple drive by and pulled them over. What he did next left them stunned:

Does it matter if Charles Manson
appreciates the fact that he got a trial instead of a summary
execution? No. It does not matter what’s in that twisted head of
his. Same thing with bin Laden. The American military should make
every effort to avoid civilian casualties even if bin Laden targets
civilians. Similarly, it does not matter if bin Laden scoffs at the
Geneva Convention as a sign of ”weakness.” The former VP does not get
it. It is about us, not the terrorists.

An obsession with the mentality of the enemy (what they see; what they hope for, etc.) can distort our military and counterterrorism strategy (pdf)
as well. Cheney wants to find out what bin Laden’s objective is and
then thwart it. I certainly agree that gathering intelligence about
the enemy is useful, but Cheney seems so obsessed that he wants to
thwart al-Qaeda’s objectives — even if some pose no threat to the USA, and even if some of al-Qaeda’s objectives are pure folly.

If the CIA told Cheney that it intercepted a message
and learned that bin Laden wanted some of his men to climb Mount
Everest as a propaganda ploy to somehow show the world that they can
lord over the globe, one gets the feeling that Cheney wouldn’t shrug
at the report. Since that is what bin Laden hopes to achieve, the
enemy objective must be thwarted! Quick, dispatch American GIs to the
top of Everest and establish a post.
Stay on the lookout for al-Qaeda and stop them no matter what! That’ll
show bin Laden who has the real power! Farfetched, yes, but what
about the costly nation-building exercise (pdf) in Iraq? How long is that going to last? Mr. Cheney did not want to address that part of the Bush-Cheney record for some reason.

In another passage, Cheney bristles at the notion that his “unpleasant
interrogation practices have been a recruitment tool for the enemy.
Cheney claims this theory ignores the fact that 9/11 happened before
the torture memos were ever drafted and approved. He observes that the
terrorists have never “lacked for grievances against the United
States.” They’re evil, Cheney says, now let’s talk about something
else. The gist of Cheney’s argument — that no post 9/11 policy can
ever be counterproductive — makes no sense.

Cheney’s controversial legacy
will be debated for a long time. And he’s smart enough to know that he
may have very few defenders down the road, so he is wasting no time at
all in making his own case. The problem is that his case is weak and
plenty of people can see it.

For related Cato work, go here and here.