WINTER 2002Bill Barlow
Salem MM
resident George W. Bush seems to have made clear no option in Iraq will satisfy him but military action. But why? What is there to be gained in a rush toward war, the United Nations and many of our closest allies be damned? Certainly not the element of surprise, when the administration has more than telegraphed an attack, it has all but promised one for months. While it seems clear that the Iraqi regime is dysfunctional, anti-democratic and cruel, it is unique in none of those areas.
His neighbors, and our allies, in Saudi Arabia strictly control all media, and government squads terrorize women and enforce an unbending vision of Islam. A military dictatorship installed in a coup that not only seeks nuclear weapons, but actually tests them, seems like a clear and present danger, unless it happens in Pakistan, our close friend in the war on terrorism. Clearly, human rights and democratic ideals take back seat to U.S. global interests, despite efforts to present a massive intervention in the Persian Gulf as a clear-cut battle between good and evil. But hostility to the United States does not even seem to be the bottom line. Even Iraq’s somewhat disparate fellows in the exclusive Axis of Evil, North Korea and Iran, are not subject to the rattle of American sabers.
The new Bush Doctrine of preemptive action strikes me as imperial, a scary but logical extension of a history of go-it-alone foreign policy from the start of the Bush Administration.
The president now says action is more costly than inaction. But Americans have always seen war as a last resort, the evidence of the failure of diplomacy. The new doctrine sees attack as more normal than talk, and far more effective. Taken with the administration’s open discussion of making nuclear weapons just another part of our arsenal, rather than an unacceptable option in response to anything short of a threat of our annihilation, who could blame even America’s best friends for getting a little antsy? Personally, I’m terrified.
This new approach also seems far more likely to rally our enemies than cow them. Our foremost adversaries, the stateless and multi-headed beast we went into Afghanistan to decapitate, the bunch most likely to strike and strike again, must look with joy at the prospect of another war in the Gulf. Al-Qaeda clearly wants nothing more than to create war of cultures, a new Crusade, to unify global Muslim sentiment against the modern world as personified by the United States.
Aside from the terrible loss of life, what other end could be gained by attacks on two U.S. embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, and several attempts on American soil before the bloodiest blow ever struck to American civilians last September? Clearly, the terrorists want a war, but do we?
They do not fear retaliation, but welcome it, seeing in the chaos of war the power to remake the world. A further attack on Iraq, with what can only be seen as tenuous justification, seems like an answer to their most apocalyptic prayers.
Even assuming the despot Saddam Hussein is the worst of the worst, and is the gravest threat to the United States in this wide and dangerous world, what better way to ensure he unleashes all of the dogs of war, from anthrax to Zyclon B, than to invade with the expressed purpose of ousting him? We are backing a rat into a corner to see how hard he can bite.
What’s more, are we willing to loose anarchy in the Middle East in order to remove a tyrant? Or are we likely to launch a new Marshall Plan, committing the time and the money to ensure a stable, unified and democratic Iraq remains after we declare victory? A glance to Kabul, where American soldiers balance a shaky central government with little control of the countryside, may provide some clue to the answer.
The United States has made much of its position as the world’s only superpower. We’ve made ourselves comfortable, and we’ve made clear that we like things our way. We stand at the precipice of starting a new century, a new millennium, with a needless war of aggression. The brutal and inexcusable attacks of Sept. 11 shocked me and continue to sadden me to the core, but watching the way America stood back up and showed the world her bravery, strength and love, I have never been more proud of my country or to call myself an American. Out of many came one, and a nation made up of pieces of every country, race and religion stood united. All the more so, then, do I look at this illogical and jingoistic push for battle with shame for my nation in the eyes of the world.
But it could be different. With our almost immeasurable power, we could make the world a safer place for ourselves if we worked tirelessly to ensure that justice, wholesome food, stable local economies and self-determination were the norm throughout the world, rather than the exception. When people throughout the world see the United States as a bully or more interested in defending corporate rights than human rights, it is easy enough to recruit the idealist, or fanatic, to hurt us any way possible. But people with hope make poor terrorists. We have the power to give hope to much of the world. Let’s use it, instead of squandering it on the Rat of Baghdad.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Last modified:
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 08:19 AM
