FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Bush Wants This War

by PETER LEE

“Why does a dog lick its own balls?” the joke goes. “Because he can.” And so the justification for the Iraq war has drifted from urgency to necessity to facility, and now simple gratification.

The new selling point for the invasion is that it will be easy and painless. That $200 billion isn’t real money–it’s just government budget numbers. And the thousands of dead aren’t real lives–guaranteed 99% foreigners. And it’s good for the economy. It is hard to take Bush’s war seriously as retribution against the murderers of 9/11, or an episode in an eternal crusade against terrorism, or even as a struggle to protect us against disgruntled Arab dictators. It’s just business as usual for the world’s only superpower.

In fact, in the uneasy calm after Bush’s U.N. speech as U.S. diplomats worked the phones and criss-crossed the globe to twist arms and grease palms for America’s assault, there was a depressing realization that nothing mattered, that Bush’s decision to attack Iraq was a private affair, made long before 9/11, and that the real world, the people in it, logic, and a sense of decency are simply irrelevancies to be contemptuously bulldozed by Washington’s money, arms, and mulish intransigence.

To understand the war fetish, perhaps we have to look beyond 9/11, beyond the Middle East, even beyond the precious black crude, to behavior that seems to be genetically coded into Republican administrations since Ronald Reagan’s time. You might remember Reagan invaded Grenada on rather dubious grounds, sending a message to the Russkies (and anybody else who might stand in the way of America’s imperial prerogatives) that the U.S. had shaken off its Vietnam malaise and was back, taking names and kicking ass. Bush I continued the tradition, invading Panama to put the kibosh on our proxy-turned-whipping-boy, Manuel Noriega, and putting Nicaragua and the rest of Central America on notice that the gringos were back in their backyard heavy with armament and attitude.

From this perspective, Bush II is simply working from the same playbook. In this case, the marginalized, militarily impotent, nuisance strongman to be brutalized by U.S. forces is Saddam Hussein. The only difference is, the country’s a little bigger and the stakes are a little higher (all that oil). And in place of the Monroe Doctrine (which, we might remember, has justified pre-emptive military assaults against our little amigos in the Western Hemisphere for 200 years), we have the Bush Doctrine (pre-emptive military assaults everywhere).

It’s now abundantly clear that war with Iraq was on the agenda from the moment Bush was elevated to office. The war fit very well with the new administration’s knee-jerk repudiation of all things Clinton (peace process in the Middle East, globalization, diplomatic yack-yack, treaties, the U.N., touchy-feely bullshit in general) and would show the world that the only superpower was back in the war business big-time. Putting the Middle East oil fields in play with a chance to seize Iraq’s reserves (and wash away any opposition and the consequences of the inevitable errors or miscalculations with a tidal wave of crude) was no doubt a strong, additional incentive.

Sept. 11 was seized upon by the warhawks as a great opportunity to accelerate the Iraq agenda. Ironically, while the world granted America unlimited license to bomb, arrest, detain, and mislead in the name of justice, reconciling the facts of Sept. 11 with the White House’s pre-existing, brutishly simplistic desire to give Iraq a good ass-kicking proved to be an intellectual burden too heavy to bear. And so the justifications of the war have grown more extravagant and unrealistic, and the rebuttals to reasoned concerns more flippant and unpersuasive.

It is almost amusing to hear the escalating frustration in George W. Bush’s voice as he is compelled to come up with complex rationalizations and forced to schmooze with Democrats and foreigners in order to do something that should be as simple and natural as shooting holes in roadsigns from a pickup–pounding the daylights out of some designated-victim regime so the world remembers to crap its pants in fright anytime it sees the American flag.

There are reasons for invading Iraq. And pretty much all of them under Bush’s bomb-happy scenario are bad ones. But that’s just the point. The White House is demonstrating that facts, logic, domestic and world opinion, and international organizations offer no protection against American violence. Bush wants to show the world, war on Iraq may be mean, it may be stupid, it may be dangerous, it might be deadly, it might even be catastrophic to our security and interests, but even so, he wants to say, interrupting his genital lavage on the Oval Office carpet and favoring us with an angry snarl, I’m doing it BECAUSE I CAN!

Even those of us who don’t get our foreign policy from bumper stickers and Harley-Davidson t-shirts don’t remember losing lots of sleep after Grenada and Panama. So it’s tempting to look the other way and just grumble in the kitchen a little bit about the human, civil, and diplomatic risks of dropping the hammer on Hussein. We might even feel a guilty frisson of pleasure basking in our government’s badass aura of reckless, pitbull invincibility.

But this time it is different. September 11 did change things, proving that the our no-cost empire is a delusion promoted by bloodthirsty and greedy bureaucrats. There is a tremendous human and social cost to America’s unilateral projection of power across the globe, and it is borne both by the people of the world and the citizens and residents of the United States. It is not borne, or even acknowledged, by vicious and cynical leaders who look at the problems of the world and see only the opportunity for another war.

It is sobering to consider that, on the anniversary of September 11, George W. Bush’s eyes brimmed with tears for the victims of 9/11, his mouth was filled with the obligatory platitudes of his speechwriters, but his heart and mind were filled with thoughts of war on Iraq. It is time for the nation to pull this feckless leader, and the world, back from the abyss, stop the war with Iraq, and turn the efforts and resources of this country from the manufactured threat of Saddam Hussein to the real challenges of justice, security, and prosperity facing our world.

PETER LEE writes for Halcyon Days. He can be reached at: halcyondays@attbi.com

copyright 2002 PETER LEE

 

Peter Lee edits China Matters and writes about Asia for CounterPunch.  

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
February 24, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Pierre M. Sprey - Franklin “Chuck” Spinney
Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia
Ajamu Baraka
Malcolm X and Human Rights in the Time of Trumpism: Transcending the Master’s Tools
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Exxon’s End Game Theory
John Laforge
Did Obama Pave the Way for More Torture?
Mike Whitney
McMaster Takes Charge: Trump Relinquishes Control of Foreign Policy 
Paul Street
Liberal Hypocrisy, “Late-Shaming,” and Russia-Blaming in the Age of Trump
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Decline of US and UK Power
Louisa Willcox
The Endangered Species Act: a Critical Safety Net Now Threatened by Congress and Trump
Vijay Prashad
A Foreign Policy of Cruel Populism
John Chuckman
Israel’s Terrible Problem: Two States or One?
Matthew Stevenson
The Parallax View of Donald Trump
Norman Pollack
Drumbeat of Fascism: Find, Arrest, Deport
Stan Cox
Can the Climate Survive Electoral Democracy? Maybe. Can It Survive Capitalism? No.
Ramzy Baroud
The Trump-Netanyahu Circus: Now, No One Can Save Israel from Itself
Edward Hunt
The United States of Permanent War
David Morgan
Trump and the Left: a Case of Mass Hysteria?
Pete Dolack
The Bait and Switch of Public-Private Partnerships
Mike Miller
What Kind of Movement Moment Are We In? 
Elliot Sperber
Why Resistance is Insufficient
Brian Cloughley
What are You Going to Do About Afghanistan, President Trump?
Binoy Kampmark
Warring in the Oncology Ward
Yves Engler
Remembering the Coup in Ghana
Jeremy Brecher
“Climate Kids” v. Trump: Trial of the Century Pits Trump Climate Denialism Against Right to a Climate System Capable of Sustaining Human Life”
Jonathan Taylor
Hate Trump? You Should Have Voted for Ron Paul
Franklin Lamb
Another Small Step for Syrian Refugee Children in Beirut’s “Aleppo Park”
Ron Jacobs
The Realist: Irreverence Was Their Only Sacred Cow
Andre Vltchek
Lock up England in Jail or an Insane Asylum!
Rev. William Alberts
Grandiose Marketing of Spirituality
Paul DeRienzo
Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Eric Sommer
Organize Workers Immigrant Defense Committees!
Steve Cooper
A Progressive Agenda
David Swanson
100 Years of Using War to Try to End All War
Andrew Stewart
The 4CHAN Presidency: A Media Critique of the Alt-Right
Edward Leer
Tripping USA: The Chair
Nyla Ali Khan
One Certain Effect of Instability in Kashmir is the Erosion of Freedom of Expression and Regional Integration
Rob Hager
The Only Fake News That Probably Threw the Election to Trump was not Russian 
Mike Garrity
Why Should We Pay Billionaires to Destroy Our Public Lands? 
Mark Dickman
The Prophet: Deutscher’s Trotsky
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of the Toilet Police
Randy Shields
Tom Regan: The Life of the Animal Rights Party
Ezra Kronfeld
Joe Manchin: a Senate Republicrat to Dispute and Challenge
Clancy Sigal
The Nazis Called It a “Rafle”
Louis Proyect
Socialism Betrayed? Inside the Ukrainian Holodomor
Charles R. Larson
Review: Timothy B. Tyson’s “The Blood of Emmett Till”
David Yearsley
Founding Father of American Song
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail