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.  

February 10, 2016
Eoin Higgins
Clinton and the Democratic Establishment: the Ties That Bind
Fred Nagel
The Role of Legitimacy in Social Change
Mike Whitney
Putin’s Aleppo Gamble Pays Off
Chris Martenson
The Return of Crisis: Everywhere Banks are in Deep Trouble
Ramzy Baroud
Next Onslaught in Gaza: Why the Status Quo Is a Precursor for War
Jeffrey St. Clair
Why Bernie Still Won’t Win
Sheldon Richman
End, Don’t Extend, Draft Registration
Benjamin Willis
Obama in Havana
Jack Smith
Obama Intensifies Wars and Threats of War
Rob Hager
How Hillary Clinton Co-opted the Term “Progressive”
Mark Boothroyd
Syria: Peace Talks Collapse, Aleppo Encircled, Disaster Looms
Lawrence Ware
If You Hate Cam Newton, It’s Probably Because He’s Black
Jesse Jackson
Starving Government Creates Disasters Like Flint
Bill Laurance
A Last Chance for the World’s Forests?
Gary Corseri
ABC’s of the US Empire
Frances Madeson
The Pain of the Earth: an Interview With Duane “Chili” Yazzie
Binoy Kampmark
The New Hampshire Distortion: The Primaries Begin
Andrew Raposa
Portugal: Europe’s Weak Link?
Wahid Azal
Dugin’s Occult Fascism and the Hijacking of Left Anti-Imperialism and Muslim Anti-Salafism
February 09, 2016
Andrew Levine
Hillary Says the Darndest Things
Paul Street
Kill King Capital
Ben Burgis
Lesser Evil Voting and Hillary Clinton’s War on the Poor
Paul Craig Roberts
Are the Payroll Jobs Reports Merely Propaganda Statements?
Fran Quigley
How Corporations Killed Medicine
Ted Rall
How Bernie Can Pay for His Agenda: Slash the Military
Neve Gordon
Israeli Labor Party Adopts the Apartheid Mantra
Kristin Kolb
The “Great” Bear Rainforest Agreement? A Love Affair, Deferred
Joseph Natoli
Politics and Techno-Consciousness
Hrishikesh Joshi
Selective Attention to Diversity: the Case of Cruz and Rubio
Stavros Mavroudeas
Why Syriza is Sinking in Greece
David Macaray
Attention Peyton Manning: Leave Football and Concentrate on Pizza
Arvin Paranjpe
Opening Your Heart
Kathleen Wallace
Boys, Hell, and the Politics of Vagina Voting
Brian Foley
Interview With a Bernie Broad: We Need to Start Focusing on Positions and Stop Relying on Sexism
February 08, 2016
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Privatization: the Atlanticist Tactic to Attack Russia
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Water War Against the Poor: Flint and the Crimes of Capital
John V. Walsh
Did Hillary’s Machine Rig Iowa? The Highly Improbable Iowa Coin Tosses
Vincent Emanuele
The Curse and Failure of Identity Politics
Eliza A. Webb
Hillary Clinton’s Populist Charade
Uri Avnery
Optimism of the Will
Roy Eidelson Trudy Bond, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner, Jean Maria Arrigo, Brad Olson, and Bryant Welch
Preserve Do-No-Harm for Military Psychologists: Coalition Responds to Department of Defense Letter to the APA
Patrick Cockburn
Oil Prices and ISIS Ruin Kurdish Dreams of Riches
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, the UN and Meanings of Arbitrary Detention
Shamus Cooke
The Labor Movement’s Pearl Harbor Moment
W. T. Whitney
Cuba, War and Ana Belen Montes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail