The Grand Narrative for War: Manufacturing Consent on Syria

by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO, the Counterpunch, Weekend Edition September 6-8, 2013

 

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky gained much notoriety from their seminal book, Manufacturing Consent, more than two decades ago. The central thesis of that book – that political and media elites construct propaganda narratives in order to build support for U.S. foreign policy – remains as relevant today as ever. Obama’s proposed intervention in Syria is a case in point. Public support for military action remains quite low – ranging from between one-quarter to one-third of Americans according to recent polls. That’s likely to change in coming weeks to months as the administration ramps up its pro-intervention rhetoric, and as political elites, reporters, and media pundits uncritically repeat and embrace his messages. The 2011 intervention in Libya provides a template for the administration’s plan:

1. defend an intervention via humanitarian rhetoric that lambastes a dictator for serious human rights abuses;
2. deliver a number of public speeches in an effort to build support for war;
3. and once troops begin to enter harm’s way, sit back and enjoy increased support as Americans “rally around the flag” in support of the conflict.

This formula was enough to gain support for intervention from between 50 to 60 percent of Americans in the case of Libya, and is likely to do the same in Syria once Congress goes along.
The process has already begun. A senate committee already voted 10-7 to grant authorization for force, and a floor resolution is likely to follow in this Democratic controlled chamber. The Obama administration has largely controlled the narrative on Syria over the last year and a half, stressing that the United States is seriously concerned with Assad’s abuses and use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians. A September survey from the Pew Research Center finds that by a factor of more than two-to-one, Americans conclude that, from what they have “read and heard,” that “there is clear evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.”
The beleaguered peoples of Syria, Obama contends, need a helping hand from the United States, which is said to be unconditionally concerned with protecting the safety and security of those targeted by Weapons of Mass Destruction. The claim that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its people has been largely accepted in political and media discourse, despite the fact that the administration has yet to present any concrete evidence. The failure to present evidence presents a particular problem considering claims appearing in news reports that rebel groups may be guilty of using chemical weapons. The Syrian government may very well have used these weapons, and this would probably surprise few people, but the key point here is that the administration has done nothing to present that case before announcing its campaign for war.

In analyzing major news stories via the Lexis Nexis academic database, my findings suggests that during early 2012 and in the first half of 2013 (both periods when reporting of the Syrian civil war was growing), the percent of stories referencing the Obama administration significantly outnumbered references to Congressional Republican opponents in the news by between ten to twenty percentage points. In other words, the administration had a clear advantage in controlling the narrative on Syria – as presidents typically do when it comes to foreign policy. Reports claiming that both the Syrian government and rebel groups have engaged in human rights abuses and used chemical weapons represent a challenge to Obama’s Syria narrative.

According to Lexis Nexis, reports referencing these two points barely appeared in U.S. news stories from 2012 to 2013. Instead, the grand narrative on Syria emphasized Obama’s rhetoric on the need to confront Assad, while also stressing the efforts of rebels to take down the government. Predictably, those paying close attention to news on Syria have fallen in line behind the president. My analysis of Pew Research Center polling data from 2012 finds that those paying “a lot” or “some attention” to Syria in the news were significantly more likely to support U.S. military intervention and more likely to embrace supplying weapons to rebels than those paying attention to Syria news “not at all.” The effects of pro-administration media content, however, were blunted by the fact that relatively few Americans were paying attention to Syria from 2012 through early 2013 (typically less than 50 percent in polls when this question was surveyed). Pro-administration coverage is likely to produce growing support for intervention by late 2013 however, considering that a strong majority of Americans (over 60 percent from recent survey findings) are now paying attention as the U.S. prepares for war. Mass support will be necessary to tip the scales in favor of intervention.

Clearly, Obama read the writing on the wall and saw from the latest polling figures that opposition to war has persisted by a factor of two-to-one; hence his effort to achieve support from Congress. This president would like to spread responsibility for the intervention between himself and the legislature, in an obvious effort to prevent a public mutiny focused on executive and to avoid the tarnishing of his presidential “legacy.” This effort has little to do with a commitment to the rule of law, as Obama argues (Congress according to the Constitution has the power to declare war, not the president). Obama showed contempt for Congress and little interest in securing a congressional resolution in the 2011 Libya intervention. Receiving support from Republican hawks and Democratic allies on Syria, however, will add an element of perceived “legitimacy” to the war effort, likely bumping up public support. This much seems clear from late August NBC polling demonstrating that 79 percent of Americans feel that “Obama should be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria.”

1. Obama’s delivery of a number of speeches shortly before the conflict begins (as happened in Libya), will likely be accompanied by growing support among those paying attention to presidential rhetoric and reporting on Syria.
2. Pundits in the media will fawn over the president for his efforts to promote “transparency” in the intervention by presenting “clear cut” and “definitive” evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons – of course, without bothering to pressure for a return of inspectors to verify these claims.
3. Finally, as the U.S. military enters into the hostilities, many will grant short-term support to the president, seeking to demonstrate their “support for the troops” during a difficult time.

This “rally effect” has accompanied every war in recent history, and it will be no different in Syria. The combination of these three developments will likely result in at least a bare majority of Americans (perhaps more) supporting limited intervention, so long as ground troops are not introduced.

The notion of “manufacturing consent” seems appropriate here, considering that challenges to war are being marginalized in political discourse. Some of those points are worth reflecting on:

* Why should Americans accept Obama’s artificial “red line” in the sand that dictates intervention based upon evidence of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons? Estimates suggest that approximately 100,000 Syrians have already been killed in the civil war. Do we even know how many have died as a result of chemical weapons use as compared to conventional weapons? What makes a death via chemical weapons more morally outrageous than a death via conventional weapons? Do the families of the dead care about this distinction? A murder is a murder regardless of the type of bomb used. The “red line” narrative appears to be little more than a propaganda line used to drum up public support for war at the expense of critical thought.

* Should we really believe that air strikes are going to disarm the Syrian regime, or at least render its alleged chemical stockpile harmless? This seems fanciful, despite the fact that so many pundits are accepting this position. Those familiar with the disarmament process know that it requires the introduction of international inspectors, which first need to identify facilities where chemical weapons reside, in order to disarm them. Without such efforts, there is reason to question the assumption that a bombing campaign will prevent future use of chemical weapons. The bombing campaign seems intended to degrade Assad’s military capabilities – rather than his chemical weapons stockpiles – so as to provide the Syrian rebels with an opportunity to take the offensive against the government. Obama hasn’t been honest with the public about this motive for action.

* Why is military intervention superior to intensifying sanctions? Increased sanctions send the message that repression is unacceptable, as the guilty country becomes even further isolated from the rest of the world. This solution has the added advantage of removing U.S. responsibility for the bombing of civilians in large numbers. Furthermore, the sanctions alternative will at least ensure that the U.S. does not further exacerbate instability in Syria, considering the concern that violence could spill into neighboring countries. Hezbollah has announced that it will launch attacks against Israel following a U.S. intervention in Syria. Hezbollah’s attacks would most certainly be accompanied by Israeli incursion into Lebanon, contributing to further regional instability, death, and destruction.

* Why Syria, and why now? There are so many examples of repressive allied regimes that receive a free pass on human rights abuses. Reports suggest that more than 600 civilians were killed in the recent military crackdown by the U.S.-allied Egyptian dictatorship, with scarcely a word from the president, compared to the 1,500 hundred who died in the Syrian government’s alleged chemical weapons attack last month. Plenty of examples of human rights abuses by U.S. favored dictators (or by countries with little strategic value) have produced little to no response from U.S. presidents. To name a few: the Saudi and Bahraini government crackdown on protesters in Bahrain during the Arab Spring; government genocide against civilians in Darfur during the 2000s; the Turkish government’s suppression of tens of thousands of Kurds from the 1990s onward; the murder of hundreds of thousands via genocide in Rwanda during the 1990s; the Indonesian government’s occupation and genocide in East Timor from the 1970s through 1990s; Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds during the mid to late 1980s, when he remained a valued U.S. ally. We could add more countries to the list, but the main point is that allied human rights abusers (or those responsible for abuses in countries with little strategic value) receive a pass, while designated enemies of state (Libya and Syria being the most recent examples) are targeted due to geopolitical U.S. interests – the most salient being Middle Eastern oil.

* What about those chemical weapons? Why should the Obama administration expect the public to accept that Assad used chemical weapons when literally no evidence has been presented? To simply accept presidential rhetoric without evidence would be a serious mistake in light of the way that intelligence was knowingly and criminally manipulated by Bush in selling the war with Iraq. If it turns out that both sides are guilty of using chemical weapons, what is the humanitarian or moral basis for intervening in favor of rebels – who themselves have amassed quite a horrendous human rights record – against the government?

* What of humanitarian concerns? Do we really think that bombing military emplacements located in civilian areas can be defended as humanitarian? Such attacks are likely to escalate the human rights abuses in Syria, rather than curtail them. It is a historical fact that the vast majority of deaths during war are civilians. Perhaps we should stop defending wars by using mythical humanitarian rhetoric when we know that they produce destruction and death, instead of humanitarian relief.

To date, I have seen little effort to address these criticisms. Such concerns have been brought up from time to time in the news, but if past trends continue, media coverage will privilege presidential narratives over anti-war views. At day’s end, Syria appears to have all the makings of a classic effort to “manufacture consent” in favor of war.

Anthony DiMaggio holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois, Chicago. He has taught American Government and Global Politics at a number of colleges and universities, and is the author of numerous books, including Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008); When Media Goes to War (2010); Crashing the Tea Party (2011); and The Rise of the Tea Party (2011). He is currently completing a book on presidential rhetoric: From Fear to Democracy: Presidential Rhetoric from the War on Terror to the Arab Spring, and can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

In 2001: The US Had Already Decided to Take Down The Governments of 7 Countries In 5 Years

The following is a tapped lecture by, retired four-star US General Wesley Clark given in 2007 at the Commonwealth Club of California. Clark babbles about a lot of issues; after all, he is a former presidential candidate, and more importantly, he is marketing a new book. However, he admits to the following: 

• In 2001 the US had already taken the decision to take down the governments of 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran) in 5 years.
• The US was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup, Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld and you could name a half dozen other collaborators from the project for a new American century. They want to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, and make it under their control.

Below is a transcript of this lecture. In my humble view, General Clark’s abilities to understand history strike me as, dangerously handicapped and limited to the “face value” of events he lived or learned about. This shows lucidly when he analyzes the Cold war and the reasons underlying the fall of the Soviet Union (Highlighted in Blue: bogus, superficial, pure American). It also shows when he naively dismisses the creation of the Israeli State as the root of all evil, when he judges the invasion of Afghanistan as a right decision, and when gives his opinion about Iran, Lebanon and Hezbollah, Syria, and Israel (Highlighted in Bold Fuchsia: completely bogus and false; no understanding whatsoever about the great and real Zionist threat embodied in the State of Israel). Stuff highlighted in Bold Red is just amazing to read!

There is also a shorter version of this video (its beginning and end are indicated in the text). Enjoy!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

START OF LECTURE

THE COLD: REASONS WHY THE US WON 

The beginning of this problem with Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror and all of that...it's not with the birth of Mohammed, and it's not with the founding of the state of Israel. It's actually 1989, it was the year of miracles in Europe.

It was the year in which the Berlin Wall came down. It was the year in which the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe collapsed. It was the year in which we are generally credited with having won the Cold War. We won the Cold War with an integrated civil, political, diplomatic, economic and military strategy that was calling upon all of America's resources and strengths to contain the expansion of communism and deter the use of Soviet military power.

...The strategy was actually formulated in the late 40's by Harry Truman and it was carried by Eisenhower...Republicans always believe we should have more weapons and talk tougher and threaten more people...Democrats always said, can't we be nicer and have more negotiations and can't we sign more treaties...but those abroad common agreement, that this was America's purpose in the world...And so Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Reagan all carried this strategy forward until the Soviet Union collapsed.

....It was unthinkable to us that we would win...the Berlin Wall was down. We couldn't believe it. And within two years the Soviet Union had collapsed. We won the greatest victory of the 20th Century. We won it without ever having fought the Russians directly.

REASONS WHY THE US WON THE COLD WAR

We won it (the Cold War) because we:

• Built our economy and Eisenhower said America's greatest strength was our economic strength.
• Took our military and trained them, but we told them that their real purpose was to deter war, not to fight war.
• Took our educational system and we tried to sharpen it for training and teaching and science and education and technology to compete with the Soviets on Sputnik and the race to the moon.
• Took our young people and we appointed the football coach from Oklahoma to be the Presidential Physical Fitness Advisor for America.
• (Encouraged) young people to be physically fit and get a presidential physical fitness badge
• Did a lot of things to try to harness America:. 
• Brought tens of thousands of young people here to study and see our ideas. 
• Sent American companies abroad.
• Encouraged them to hire local people and then bring them back here for training. Those multinational corporations were America's eyes and ears and ambassadors on the world. 

All of that was designed to contain the spread of communism and deter the Soviet Union and it worked.

THE COLD WAR IS OVER: IT IS THE END OF HISTORY

But when we won the Cold War, we lost our strategy. We had no adversary:

• We lost our purpose in the world. 
• We lost the organizing principles that held the American society together and focused just on the outer world
• We lost the organizing principles that kept the NATO alliance together. 
• We were in a new world. It was so new that Harvard historian Francis Fujiyama it the end of history. 
• George Bush proclaimed a new world order. 

SIX DAYS, FIVE WARS

...Suddenly I was told I was going to go to Washington, get a third star and be the Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff, the highest military staff in the country. My job was to integrate military thinking with diplomatic and political strategy.

...When I went up there. I didn't know what we were doing because there was no Soviet threat, there was no organizing principle...

...So the 2nd day, I was there...and somebody said, bad news in Africa, we just had a shoot down of an aircraft by a missile that shot-down the presents of Rwanda and Burundi...it turned out it was a French missile and not an American missile...I said well, who are these people on Rwanda and Burundi. They said [...] we don't have time to brief you on it right now, but we will get on your calendar and come back and give you the run down next week...I had already learned, when every time I went to Shalikashvili's office, he had CNN on continuously.

...I realized - my learning experience was if you ever want to find out what's happening, you don't ask the National Military Command Center, you watch CNN.

...So I was leaving office...on a Friday night (4th day)…I was looking on the CNN screen, there is fighting, there are soldiers, they are in Africa...I said what is this, a war movie or what?...My assistant said, oh no it's some action in Kigali or someplace...I think it's a French and maybe it's the Belgians.

...So I quickly called the National Military Command Center and said I am the new J5, I am supposed to know everything, what's going on in the world and looks like we got a battle going on in Africa, what's that about? They said, sir we don't know anything.

I said did you look at CNN, they said, no sir. So I called the European Command Center in Stuttgart, Germany...they are supposed to keep up with Africa. I said, what's going on, they said, we don't know anything about it. So I had to call the embassies...we were up all night with the State Department trying to figure out what the French and Belgians were doing.

Saturday morning (5th day), I had a nine o'clock meeting with Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and they said, if you impress Perry you may get to go with him on a trip to Korea. So I went in there and...I discovered we were about to go to war with North Korea.

It seemed like President Clinton had been there in October of 93...the North Koreans [...] told (that there's) no nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. He got home, the CIA said, well Mr. President there has been a slight problem, it seemed like we may have misled you...there is this Korean reactor and they can take the fuel rods out of it and if they reprocess them, they could extract plutonium from the spent fuel and that could make a nuclear weapon and there could be enough plutonium to make two nuclear weapons...And so we were going to threaten them and we were going to take them to the UN. And they (North Koreans) said, if you take us to the UN and put sanctions on us, we will consider it as act of war. And so the generals in Korea called us to say they say it's a act of war, it's going to be an act of war.

And on Sunday (6th day) I got called into a meeting in the White House...there was the Secretary of State Warren Christopher...and there was Madeleine Albright on a TV screen from New York, she was the UN Ambassador and Sandy Berger, the Deputy National Security Advisor, Tony Lake, the National Security Advisor and Bill Perry was there again and Shalikashvili, my boss was there and several other people, Vice President's National Security Advisor, and they are arguing about the Air Rules of Engagement for flying combat air patrols over Bosnia. And they are talking about what are the criteria which enable them to shoot Serb aircraft...I am sitting there trying to follow this conversation. I got a little stenographer's notebook. I am thinking I have to copy everything down, I couldn't follow it, they couldn't follow it, they want an aviator in the room, no body understood the technology, we spent three hours there on a Sunday afternoon and we ended with nothing. That was my first weekend.

And on Monday morning (6th day), a guy came in, knocked on the door, he was a one star general...he said, I have to report something to you, I am not allowed to tell you this because it's classified information and it's compartmented. But I and I am representing you in this compartmented program, but I feel like how to tell you any way we are planning an invasion of Haiti.

And you know, here I come up, here it's the end of the Cold War, I don't know why we have armed forces left and we are about to go to war with North Korea, we are fighting the war over the Balkans and we are going to invade Haiti. And it was crazy. 

And it was a joke, because there was no strategy. And so we tried to create a strategy. We worked really hard to do it. And we labored for year and a half to create. I mean - What do you do after deterrence and containment? There was no obvious threat, we knew that there was a threat of regional war, there was a threat of terrorism, there was a threat of nuclear proliferation, there was a threat of Russia should be become hostile, but there was no obvious immediate threat that you could sort of run up the flag and say, look out here come here they come again, you know. And so how could you use that to mobilize resources, build alliances, so we really puzzle over this. 

...What would be the 2000 election themes? What would be the top five issues? It was like the economy, education, social security reform, and may be trade and that was it. There was nothing about national security, nothing, no significant foreign policy issues. Now, everything was going great.

AND THEN 9/11 HAPPENED  (Shorter video version starts here)

And then 9/11happened...what happened in 9/11 is we didn't have a strategy, we didn't have bipartisan agreement, we didn't have American understanding of it...we had instead a policy coup in this country...a policy coup. Some hard-nosed people took over the direction of American policy and they never bothered to inform the rest of us.

I went through the Pentagon ten days after 9/11...An officer from the Joint Staff called me into his office and said, I would want you to know we are going to attack Iraq. And I said, why? He said, we don't know. I said, will they tie Saddam to 9/11? He said, no...but I guess, they don't know to do about terrorism and so the they think they can attack states and they want to look strong...I guess they think if they take down a state, it will intimidate the terrorists and you know what its like that old saying, if the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem has to be a nail. 

...I walked out of there pretty upset and then we attacked Afghanistan. I was pretty happy about that, we should have. 

And then I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later, I saw the same officer.  I said why haven't we attacked Iraq? We are sill going to attack Iraq. He said, oh sir...it's worse than that...I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office, it says we are going to attack and destroy the governments in in seven countries in five years. We are going to start with Iraq and then we are going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran; seven countries in five years. 

...I was so stunned by this, I couldn't begin to talk about it. And I couldn't believe it would really be true, but that's actually what happened. 

These people took control of the policy in the United States...then it came back to me, a 1991 meeting I had with Paul Wolfowitz...he was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, it's the number three position of the Pentagon…and I said to Paul, Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm. 

And he (Paul Wolfowitz) said: "well yeah...not really...the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn't...But one thing we did learn...we learned that we can use our military in the region in the Middle East and the Soviets wont stop us...we have got about five or ten years to clean up those all Soviet client regimes; Syria, Iran, Iraq, - before the next great super power comes on to challenge us". 

It was a pretty stunning thing, I mean the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments, it's not to sort of deter a conflict, we are going to have invade countries...

This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup, Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld and you could name a half dozen other collaborators from THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. They wanted at us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.

It went back to those comments in 1991. Now did anybody tell you that, was there a national dialogue on this? Did senators and congressman stand up and denounce this plan? Was there a full-fledged American debate on it? Absolutely not; and there are still isn't, and that's why we are failing in Iraq, because Iran and Syria know about the plan. All you have to do is read the Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol and he blabber mouthed it out all over the world, Richard, the same way. They could hardly wait to finish Iraq, so they could move in to Syria. It was like a lay down, oh our legions are going to go in there. 

This wasn't what the American people voted George Bush in to office, well they didn't actually vote him to office, but it wasn't what many of the people who it wasn't what he campaigned on. He campaigned on a humble foreign policy, the most arrogant foreign policy in American history. He campaigned on no peace keeping, no nation building and here he is with Afghanistan and Iraqis; astonishing.

So the root of the problem is not how many troops are in Iraq, please believe me, don't be mad if you are a Democrat at your Democratic congressmen because they can't reduce the troops and frustrate the president. That's not the issue. And if you are Republican don't be mad at the Democrats because they are fussing with the troops. 

Whether you are Democrat or Republican, if you are an American you ought to be concerned about the strategy of the United States in this region, what is our aim, what is our purpose, why are we there, why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue (Shorter video version ends here) , for lack of an effective strategy we are going to lose in this regional battle.

They have to do with strategy, whether you talk to or isolate Iran, whether you punish or reform Syria, whether you aid or condemn Lebanon, how you motivate Egypt, how you deal with Saudi Arabia, those are key elements in a strategy and there has to be a purpose for it and none of that has been laid out in any coherent way. 

No, its all about politics, it's what Karl Rove said in January 2002, in Las Vegas, Nevada, he said, "We going to run this President as a War President." And you know what? They are succeeding. The Democratic challenge to Iraq was in my view misplaced.

AND NOW THE RHETORIC IS HEATING UP AGAINST IRAN 

...And now the rhetoric is heating up against Iran. So where is this going to go? Likely to a strike against Iran it could be strike against nuclear, could be built as a strike against Iran because there are aiding and abetting the insurgents who were fighting and killing Americans. And how many Democratic congressmen do you think will be able to take a strong and principle stand against this? 

Well the answer is: Any Democrats who want to stand up and say, "No, I believe Iran has a perfect right to kill and attack American soldiers." Or any congressmen who wants to say, "No, I have I favor Iran getting a nuclear weapon." So, do you see he is kind of he owns the playing field, the President does. It’s not about strategy, it's about politics. It's about election politics. I am sorry to say, I am so disappointed, we can't seem to control the dialogue.

And I am out here tonight begging you to help us get this dialogue reoriented in the right direction before it's too late and we are engaged in another and deeper war with more costs, another unnecessary war in this region. 

What should we be doing? We should send a diplomatic region mission to the region. I would put Richard Holbrooke over there in a heartbeat. Put him on a golf stream gave him a General, gave him a couple of assistance. So I said, "Dick, see you come back when you got it sorted out. I am giving you two months. Go visit every leader in the good, we will give them this; if they are bad, we are going to do this. And see if you can get make some sense out of this and build some coherence." 

Iran cannot tolerate a hostile Iraq. We did them a great favor. But Iran is torn between whether they want to be revolutionary power and up and everything, or whether they want to be recognized and admitted to the world community as a major regional power. They just don't know. They got an ongoing debate and like any you know, good group, they are going to push in both directions as far as they can until they run to an obstacle, because they like to have it both ways.

Syria, well, they like to modernize they like to end the conflict with Israel, but on the other hand they don't have the economic resources, they are under threat, they are trying to maintain alliance with Iran; so they don't get pushed aside. They are at odds with the Saudi's. There is no one to make peace. 

Lebanon, completely ripped apart by internal conflict. Israel, the Palestinians you know about Hezbollah in the north but did you know that the Hamas movement is heavily infiltrated by Iran and is preparing in Gaza, the same kind of fortifications that the Israelis went against in south Lebanon. 

AMERICA HAS GOT ITS OWN CHALLENGES

So, there are a lot of problems in this region, before we use force or threaten force we should talk to people in the region. There is no guarantee, but if it were up to me I would pull out two brigades right now, I would that diplomatic mission over and I'd talk about a big regional strategy.

We have got to extricated our resources and change our focus from the Middle East to the broader world around us because while we are bogged down in terrorism, China and India are growing. They are growing at 10 percent; or in the case if India, nine percent a year. They are developing new technologies new challenges new relationships and we are both customers and competitors of these countries.

And we have got our own challenges. We have got to fix education in this country and healthcare and a business environment and re-ignite American technological ingenuity. We have got to have an energy policy that make sense and gives us greater flexibility and freedom from dependence on Middle Eastern and Russian Oil. We have got to deal with problems that are too big for any one nation to handle but there are national security problems like global warming and climate change. 

All of that is being impacted by the politically driven excessive focus on war in the Middle East. We need a real American strategy. And to get that strategy, its about who we are as Americans. Are we dividers or uniters, bullies or people who outreach and make friends? Do we fear others or do we welcome others?

Do we build fences around America or build bridges to invite others into see us? Who are we as a nation? I think we are open.

I think we are a nation of immigrants. I think we are a nation of incredible energy, courage, stamina, endurance don't ever sell America short. I want you to read my book. I want you to figure out who we are as Americans and I want you to help me open up this debate into a true dialogue about America's future, not just an argument about 10,000 US Troops in Iraq. Thank you.

END OF LECTURE