I suppose people will be speculating about the internals of Dick Cheney until the end of days [and I’m not talking about his failing heart], I’m talking about his mind. I’m aware that psychological formulations of ancient leaders in history books are often flat and simplified. Historians have the advantage of knowing how the story came out, and I suspect they retrofit the psychology to match its impact. Contemporary people are harder, and particularly someone who works as hard as Dick Cheney to leave no footprints. And I find it impossible to read what he says without seeing it as what he wants me to think – so even his scant verbal record isn’t much help. We end up doing what historians do – simplifying him based on his behavior.
We can intuit his personality traits fairly easily. What kind of people don’t show their cards and adjust their communications based on what they want you to think? Sociopaths. What kind of people keep their cards close the the chest to stay safe, go out of the way to keep you out of their business? Paranoid people. What kind of persons believe their own thoughts are absolutely true, and not open to influence by others? Narcissistic people. What kind of person believes that the way to get things done is through exerting power rather than negotiation? Paranoid Narcissistic Sociopaths. Too many terms here? Not really. The thing that unites these styles is that they are the flavors of mistrustful people who use power and manipulation to deal with others. They don’t play straight themselves and think everyone else is the same way. Whatever words one uses, Dick Cheney is a guarded, forked tongue guy, so formulations about his motivations are more veterinary than psychiatric.
In my last post, I included a 1994 video of him explaining why we should not have invaded Baghdad during the First Gulf War when he was George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense. One is tempted to explain the obvious paradox of his later passion to unseat Hussein [1997 on] as him simply being a liar – deferring to the President back then. But he said it over and over in interviews in lots of different places. And given his style, he would probably say that he was going along with the elder Bush’s wishes back then. He’s bad to lie, but not in that way. One thing that’s kind of hard to read is that his colleagues back then in the DoD, Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby drafted their Defense Planning Guidance [1992] that laid out the Wolfowitz Doctrine [preemption, unilateral action, strength without equal, promoting democracy]. When that paper was leaked, all hell broke loose and Cheney and Powell had to scramble to soften it [Cheney’s Kampf and the war on the UN…]. But it was Cheney’s shop, and Cheney did become the guy who put it into action as "The Bush Doctrine."
So, if I assume that he actually did think it was a bad idea to go after Saddam Hussein in 1991 or 1994, how could I make that fit with his being a part of this Sole Superpower, American exceptionalism, Wolfowitz Doctrine, New American Century madness – because I believe he was solidly behind that whole way of thinking too. For a while, I thought maybe he changed his mind when he was at Haliburton and smelled all that Iraqi oil. But he had smelled that oil for years. He was a "big oil congressman" for ten years before he ever became Defense Secretary. Now I’ve got a new theory based on the content of that video interview. It will sound trivial at first, but it has a few teeth. Here it is again:
- We would be alone
- What would we put in place?
- Too many Americans might die
- He didn’t want to depose Hussein
- He doesn’t say it would be unethical, immoral, unlawful [something lofty]
So, I think he was telling the truth back then. We shouldn’t have marched on Baghdad yet. We needed a government to put in place [Shiite Ahmad Chalabi and his INC]. We needed not to be alone [a reason for engaging the UK?]. We needed a reason [WMD, 9/11, al Qaeda]. We needed it to be part of our foreign policy [Iraq Liberation Act, "Bush Doctrine"]. He wasn’t lying, he was "laying low" planning for the future – doing the thing he does the best, manipulating power dynamics. It worked great [until it didn’t], taking a decade for everything to be in place. Long range planning. New government in the wings. Provocation by 9/11. Another Bush to work with. Wolfowitz, Libby, and Addington by his side. Old pal Grumpsfeld in the Pentagon. What could go wrong?
Out conned by Ahmad Chalabi? Iraqis saw through it and balked? Arabs from everywhere flocked to al Qaeda to drive out the Gringos? Minimalist military support backfired? The world said "bad US"? Add that neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rice, nor Grumpsfeld, nor Wolfowitz, nor Feith knew anything about military action or diplomacy, yet they controlled the military and post-military planning – putting together an invasion and recovery doomed to failure.
I’ve just read that Cheney is still in the hospital since July. I’d like to know where is three man-size safes are. I’m sure he has made verbal arrangements to destroy the safes if anything happens to him. I remember J Edgar Hoover’s partner backing a stationwagon up to Hoover’s house to get and dispose of his files when he died that he used to blackmail people including presidents. I’m sorry if I sound a little morbid but when I see Cheney I think he is a good definition of morbid.
Your analysis makes sense, Mickey. Cheney had several capacities that made him so successful in what he tried to do: (1) he had a certain kind of smarts that allowed him to sort through data and choose what served his purpose, and then present those arguments as though that was the only way to order it and understand it; (2) he had the ability to lie or distort without telegraphing that’s what he was doing (probably could have been a great poker player), which added to his believability — imagine him as the sly and subtle adviser to a feckless GWB; (3) and he had that sociopathic narcissistic capacity to focus single-mindedly on his own convictions and sell them without doubt or ambiguity.
Notice I’ve put this in past tense — he “had” these capacities. I doubt we’ll be hearing much more from him, except as prattled out by Liz. His heart condition must be pretty precarious. As I understand it, the auxiliary pump they put in his chest is usually a temporary measure to help someone survive until a transplant heart can be obtained.
I found myself feeling a little sorry about his coming demise — but then I realized I won’t be sorry to see him gone. I will however deeply regret that he may “get away” without ever having to own up to what he did TO this country; instead he’ll be lionized by the GOP faithful and the neocons for what they think he did FOR this country.
Ralph,
Personally, I was asleep at the switch when “the powers” that be took it upon themselves to spend my money and name a building after the pederast criminal J. Edgar Hoover. I, for one, shall not go quietly, or even politely if they try to pull a similar stunt where the venal manipulator Cheney is concerned. Of course you are correct that he will be lionized – it’s almost a given from the “height” he attained regardless of the backhanded and fundamentally dishonest way he lived his entire life. Most folks, even many whose hearts are quietly relieved that he may no longer be walking among us and spewing his destructive venom will be properly respectful…respect for the office(s) he held more than respect for the man himself. But by God, I, for one, will kick up as much dust as I can to ensure that not one more single federal penny will be spent supporting Dick Cheney in death. Leave that to the history books (and private enterprise). Let Liz self-publish the paean.
Amen, Carl !!! It’s bad enough to have to fly into Washington at the Ronald Reagan airport. I had a sick friend who was hospitalized in one of the outlying Metro Atlanta areas, and to get there I had to take The Ronald Reagan Boulevard.
If I ever had to go to a court hearing in the Dick Cheney Federal Building, I think I would commit mayhem.