|
The Bush Doctrine:
A New Cold War
Notes on the
Bush speech and the evolving international picture.
By Steve Perry
His Mission
and His Moment
Give
Shrub his due: Last night's presidential
address to the Congress was as masterful a bit of speechifying
as we have seen in a very long time. It struck all the obligatory
notes of national unity and purpose, produced numerous memorable
soundbites, and safeguarded a divided administration's prerogatives
as to future military, diplomatic, economic, and intelligence
moves. It was heartening, initially at least, in its apparent
tilt toward the moderate Powell faction of the Bush brain trust.
As the New York Times revealed yesterday,
the Bushies are bitterly divided between a Powell camp that wants
to limit the scope of initial strikes and take care to build
sound ties with the fragile pro-U.S. governments in Islamic countries
of the region and a coterie of hawks led by deputy defense secretary
Paul Wolfowitz that favors an all-out assault design to "end
nations" (Wolfowitz's formulation) that can be linked to
radical guerrilla elements.
But as the speech progressed
it became evident that Bush meant to assuage both camps, a sign
that this internal debate is far from resolved. For the Powellites
there was the careful differentiation of terrorist groups from
the mainstream of Islam, and the insistence that U.S. policy
is not at odds with an entire culture, a dubious premise in the
end but a necessary sop to the State Department's efforts at
coalition building and maintenance. The Wolfowitz cadre got its
nod later on by way of Bush's recapitulation of the Rumsfeld
declaration that up to 60 nations may find themselves on the
business end of the U.S. arsenal for supporting terrorists, and
this: "Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does
not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of
global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
Thursday's Times of London
reported that the U.S. and Britain are immersed in efforts at
developing a
secret 10-year plan to combat the forces of radical Islam.
It would be in essence the blueprint for a new Cold War to be
fought principally by means of espionage, subversion, and economic
sanctions, backed by periodic and, theoretically, limited military
incursions. This appears to be the gist of Operation Noble Eagle
as presently conceived, and it will no doubt be greeted with
open arms by the champions of military build-up in government
and the press who have found themselves at a loss since the collapse
of the Soviet Union.
As regards the Middle East
it's really an escalated version of current policy. But Cold
War II is a scenario that presumes the U.S. can avoid protracted
military engagement in Afghanistan for the meantime, and thereby
preserve a measure of stability and support from friendly regimes
in the Arab world. That's a dicey proposition; Bush repeated
again last night that Americans should not expect a war free
of casualties this time, and that suggests a capitulation to
those elements who want to make ground war in Afghanistan, at
least on a limited, special ops scale.
This way is fraught with danger.
To hold its coalition together for purposes of any future Cold
War, the U.S. has to get in and get out of Afghanistan quickly
and avoid military action in Iraq, a state closely tied
to many of the Middle East governments the U.S. hopes to keep
on its side in actions against bin Laden and the Taliban. At
the same time, it's got to hold Israel in check; continued open
conflict between the U.S.-backed Israel and Palestinian factions
is only going to foment more anti-U.S. sentiment in the very
countries the Bush administration needs now more than ever to
keep in pocket. If the American government cannot manage this
juggling act, plans for waging a long-range cold war may quickly
come to ground in the face of hot wars with other states and
factions besides Afghanistan or Iraq.
The most substantive revelation
was Bush's announcement that he would create a new Cabinet-level
post, the Office of Homeland Security, to be headed by Pennsylvania
Governor Tom Ridge. Tightened airport security will be
the least burdensome of the many measures instituted at home
in the name of combating terror; more on this domestic theater
of war in days to come.
Operation
Gratuitous Provocation
The United States had barely
unveiled the brand name of its new war when word came late yesterday
afternoon that the whole thing was rescinded. According to a
report in the UK newspaper The Guardian, "A White House
official said it was likely the name [Operation Infinite Justice]
would be withdrawn after complaints from 'Muslim clerics' that
infinite justice could only be provided by God, not the US government."
Press accounts have emphasized
that any offense given by the U.S. government was a terrible
mistake. But the phrase "infinite justice" is a little
too obscure and a little too specifically rooted in theological
tradition, Christian and Muslim alike, to give credence to that
view. While it apparently is not contained in the text of either
the Bible or the Koran, the notion has popped up in Christian
apologetics at least since St. Irenaeus's third-century polemic
against the heretics. The phrase appears countless times in Christian
exegetical texts, alternately as an attribute of God or a synonym
for godhead itself, as in the seventh-century Catholic prayer
of Isidore: "May you, who are infinite justice, never permit
that we be disturbers of justice." It's impossible to believe
that whoever coined Operation Infinite Justice was not aware
of its religious connotations, and its suggestion that the one
true god was coming to wreak vengeance. One can only hope it
was a cynical provocation and not a heartfelt one, but you can't
be too sure.
Meanwhile
in Pakistan
Friday brought broad-scale
demonstrations against the United States and the Musharraf government
with which it has forged an uneasy alliance. By European press
accounts, three were killed and hundreds injured in mass protests
in the cities of Peshawar, Islamabad, Quetta and Lahore. "In
Karachi, the country's biggest city and commercial hub,"
notes the London Independent, "police fired tear gas and
beat people with iron-tipped sticks to disperse several small
demonstrations by people who pelted vehicles with stones and
blocked roads. At least 70 demonstrators were arrested, police
said.
"In Islamabad, the capital,
the Muslim service at the Lal Masjid mosque warned Gen. Musharraf
not to cooperate with the United States. 'Musharraf, listen:
The nation will not accept your decision, and any collaboration
with the United States is treason,' the preacher told the worshippers."
The Bush government has tried
to ameliorate the tensions in Pakistan by promising to restructure
debt and to lift sanctions imposed after the country's 1998 nuclear
tests, but the clock is already ticking, while the first U.S.
strikes from forces relying on the use of Pakistani airspace
and military bases may yet be days or weeks away. Nor is it just
domestic unrest that Musharraf has to fear; as noted here yesterday,
significant portions of the military and the Pakistani intelligence
service, ISI, are on the side of the pro-Taliban, anti-U.S. masses.
The first domino teeters ominously.
Mailbag
I appreciate the notes of praise,
criticism, and inquiry you've sent along in the past few days.
Keep them coming; click on the email link below.
Steve Perry writes frequently for CounterPunch
and is a contributor to the excellent cursor.org
website, which offers incisive coverage of the current crisis.
He lives in Minneapolis, MN.
|