|
CounterPunch
September
3, 2002
The Charnel
House Future
Why Bush & Co. Must be Stopped
by Bernard Weiner
I don't want to talk here about whether a full-scale
attack on Iraq is right or wrong -- or whether, with all the
scandals surrounding Bush&Co., the Administration is using
its daily leaks and the whole Iraq debate as giant distractions.
What I want to do here is to examine
whether such attacks -- with Iraq being the most potent symbol
of America's unilateral adventurism in foreign and military policy
-- will further or endanger America's national interests. And
then we'll suggest what those of us with a less imperial view
of U.S. national interests can, and should, do to alter the situation.
First, let's look at it from the point
of view of the Bush&Co. hawks currently driving America's
foreign and military policy. From their vantage point, attacking
Iraq will accomplish several important national-interest goals:
1) It will remove a dangerous, ambitious
thug from the region, with his capacity for major mayhem -- which
could well include Saddam's use of biological, chemical, and,
eventually, nuclear, weapons. If he isn't stopped now, this reasoning
goes, and he chooses to blackmail his neighbors with such weaponry,
he could exercise control over a good share of the world's oil
reserves, and thus threaten the economic health of the developed
countries that count on that energy supply.
2) Taking out Saddam Hussein would serve
as a clear warning to other rulers in the Persian Gulf/Middle
East: Don't test us, or you'll get the same. American suzerainty
over the area would be insured for decades, and, after Iraq falls
back into its correct orbit, all without an additional shot having
to be fired. Because of all the bases set up for the Iraq attack,
with some contingents of American troops stationed in the region
on a semi-permanent basis, the threat of U.S. action against
other would-be recalcitrant rulers would take on more believability.
3) Attacking Iraq gives the military
a chance to try out its new, sophisticated hardware, and software,
and thus hone the technologies and strategies that bolster American
power around the world. Afghanistan was the prelude, but because
it was carried out on such a poor, mostly non-urbanized society,
a lot of the weaponry could not be fully tested. The Afghan campaign
was, and remains, a kind of high-tech guerrilla war. Taking on
Baghdad and a well-armed and well-trained urban defense force
would be a better test of what these weapons can do in more conventional
conflicts.
4) Attacking Iraq has a domestic benefit
as well. The al-Qaida mass-murder attacks of 9/11 frightened
the hell out of the American populace, making clear the vulnerability
of the homeland; this state of mind led to easy acceptance of
moves toward a more rigorous, militarist America, with less Constitutional
constraints on Administration actions. The "permanent war
on terrorism" ensures that citizen and Congressional criticism
of U.S. policy will be muted, and condemnable as unpatriotic.
In wartime, power goes toward the White
House. Even non-war-related legislation will be easier to get
passed because it can be seen as part of "national security"
and "homeland defense." A second Bush term is ensured.
(If the attack comes before November, GOP candidates could ride
the coattails of Bush, as the country rallies around the flag
and its commander-in-chief. If the war comes after the elections,
the Administration has nearly two years in which to nail down
a victory over Iraq and get it fully integrated into the Western
camp.)
*****
So, from the standpoint of the Bush&Co.
hawks, as you can see from the above listing, it's a win-win.
As the world's only superpower, the U.S. guarantees continued
dominance over key areas of the globe, and the Administration
maintains and grows its domestic power.
What impresses one about this Bush&Co.
way of thinking is that it looks at foreign policy only in terms
of short-range goals. Its domestic policies follow that same
limited perspective: What can we get right now? Screw the long-term
effects. Global warming? We'll stay with fossil fuels and limited
gas-mileage requirements; let the market prevail. We can worry
about the effects of global warming later, and still later, and
even later. Increased terrorism in the Middle East and inside
our own borders? Yeah, maybe, but we and Israel can deal with
it later, no problem.
*****
Now, what are the implications of this
limited-vision thinking on short- and long-range U.S. national
interests?
1) So we get rid of Saddam Hussein. We
have attacked yet another Arab nation, devoid of an overt provocation.
Granted, its leader is a constant nuisance and threat to U.S.
and Western interests -- and thus is a kind of hero on the Arab
street -- but, even though Saddam attacked nobody, he gets "pre-emptively"
taken out.
Virtually every Arab leader has warned
us against attacking Saddam Hussein, not because they like him
or even want to support him -- he's a maniacal bully who threatens
their interests as well, and they'd be happy if he disappeared
-- but because their own regimes will become even shakier when
that Arab street erupts in protest and the terrorist atrocities
fluorish. A good share of the Arab leaders are moderates and
somewhat secular, and they realize they are bucking a strong
Islamicist tide in the region. They might well be sucked into
the political maelstrom of chaos and Islamicist rage, and could
be overthrown by extreme fundamentalists.
Does Bush&Co. care about this? Apparently
not; neither does it seem to have paid much attention to the
Law of Unintended Consequences when starting a war. Unless, that
is, they've already factored-in some of that chaos in the region.
Indeed, already there is serious talk within the Administration
that maybe the U.S. will then find it necessary and convenient
to assert its hegemony -- with troops on the ground, if threats
don't result in the desired "regime changes" -- over
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, maybe even Egypt. (It
already has established its suzerainty over the Caspian Sea energy
supplies, with U.S. military bases scattered throughout the former-Soviet
'stan countries.)
2) By not addressing the underlying causes
for social unrest in the Middle East/Persian Gulf (much not of
our doing) -- the poverty, the hopelessness, the Palestine conundrum,
etc. -- we ensure that the soil in which terrorism grows will
become richer, more fecund, producing more desperate and violent
harvests. The U.S. should help solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict
first, for example, but it chooses to turn its head away -- focused
like an on-point hunting dog only on Baghdad -- while Sharon
and Hamas grow more senselessly brutal, caught up in the vicious
cycle of revenge politics.
Given that the U.S. has walked away from
the Palestine issue -- except to push for "regime change"
in the Palestinian Authority -- the Arab street associates even
more readily with Saddam, another "victim" (as they
see it) of American/Israeli aggression. Were the Palestine situation
resolved -- with a viable state of their own, the Israeli settlements
on Palestinian soil abandoned, a peace treaty between the parties,
security for Israel and Palestine as two equal countries, agreements
over water worked out, etc. -- Hamas and similar terrorist outfits
would be marginalized, and there might be less support for the
Saddams of the Middle East.
3) By attacking Iraq, the U.S. will have
established the international legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes,
invasions, assassinations, etc. to effect "regime change."
When someone threatens, or in the vague future might threaten,
what you claim as your national interests, the precedent will
have been established that it's permissable, indeed even advisable,
to attack them first, to invade if necessary, to take out their
leaders when you can. No more negotiations, or compromises, or
use of international agencies or courts. The United States of
America, the colussus astride the globe, says it's OK to just
smash and burn first, take questions later. Humanity, civilized
behavior, the rule of law -- all these slide backwards.
4) In summary, by behaving in such an
arrogant, bullyboy fashion around the globe, Bush&Co. is
building up anti-U.S. resentment and anger, creating conditions
in which terrorism grows, ignoring and insulting our traditional
allies (especially in Europe), risking our long-term economic
and social health, and so on. In the long run, the world is a
shakier, more violent place, U.S. interests are damaged, the
international economic and civil situation is more chaotic (and
we all know what kind of leaders rise in chaotic times), the
domestic political situation in the U.S. grows more fascist-like,
with a concomitant rebellion amongst key elements in the citizenry.
In short, I fail to see any benefits,
long-term for sure but even reasonable short-term ones, that
would arise from the Bush Administration's current military and
foreign policies, symbolized most immediately by its move toward
Baghdad.
When Bush took office, surrounded by
a well-seasoned, experienced Cabinet, many were willing to believe
that even if Dubya himself was something of a dim bulb, the light
and competence emanating from those around him would lift him
up and make the government look good. But after 9/11, and more
recently, it seems more and more evident that these guys, with
their limited short-term blinders on, don't really know what
the hell they're doing, other than blustering their way through
with threats and aggressive behavior.
My friends, unless the situation changes,
they are going to take us all down with them. The world will
become a charnal house of wars and counterwars and constant,
growing terrorist atrocities -- with the U.S. acting more like
the Roman Empire, sending its armed legions hither and yon to
prop up the state and deal with nationalist revolts -- and internally
our own country will resemble more and more a proto-fascist society,
with its ancillary Resistance movement.
For the sake of U.S. national interests,
and for us and our (and the world's) children and grandchildren,
these guys simply have to be stopped. Protests, teach-ins, agitation,
education, letters-to-the-editor, online analyses, leaning on
our legislators, etc. etc. -- all these and more have to be employed,
for the sake of our democratic republic and for the world.
The most obvious place to start is for
Bush&Co.'s nose to be bloodied badly in the upcoming November
elections, to remove some of the Administration's aura of invincibility.
(Already, polls indicate a fast-dropping Bush approval rating,
along with less support for an Iraq invasion; plus, the sinking
economy is beginning to affect people directly.)
I'm not saying that defeating enough
Republicans to deny the House and Senate to them will be a panacea.
A lot of the Democrats running are not much better. But what
a Dem election victory would mean (in association with a growing
number of courageous GOP moderates) is that it would be easier
to gum up Bush&Co. adventurism abroad, make it more difficult
for Ashcroft to continue shredding the Constitution, keep ideologue
judges off the bench, make it easier for serious investigations
of Bush&Co. crimes, scandals, bad policies to be initiated
in the Congress, possibly leading even to resignations or impeachments.
If we can't stop them now, in 2002, it
will be even harder in 2004, with that much more power concentrated
in Bush&Co. hands. So, if you have to, hold your nose and
donate money and time and energy to electing Democrats in November.
(I wish the objective conditions were ripe for serious Green
campaigns right now, but they aren't; the most we can hope for
at this moment in time is to move things back toward the middle.)
We can get rid of the worst apples later.
The point, the only point, is to break
the momentum of Bush&Co. in their actions abroad and here
at home, and to help create the conditions that will lead to
their removal from office, by the ballot or by resignation/impeachment.
It can be done. More citizens seem open to hearing about reasonable
alternatives, especially as the economy continues to falter.
Let's get to work.
Bernard Weiner,
Ph.D., has taught American government and international politics
at Western Washington University and San Diego State University;
he was with the San Francisco Chronicle for nearly 20 years,
and has published in The Nation, Village Voice, Progressive,
and CounterPunch.
Today's Features
Nabil Amro
Leadership
& Legitimacy:
An Open Letter to Arafat
Robert Fisk
A Forgotten
Holocaust:
The British in Palestine
Uri Avnery
The Return
of the Dinosaurs
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- War Talk As White Noise:
Anything to Get Harken and Halliburton
Out of the Headlines;
- First Hilliard, Then
McKinney: Jewish
Groups Target Blacks Brave Enough to Talk About Justice in the
Middle East; Intimidation
is the Name of the Game; Smearing
"Insane" McKinney As Muslims' Pawn;
- The Missing Terrorist?
Calling Scotland
Yard: "Where's Atif?"
- They Never Booed Dylan!:
Tape Transcript Shows
Famed Newport Folkfest Dissing of Electric Dylan Not True. The Catcalls were for Peter
Yarrow!
- New Shame from the Liffey
Shrike
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now! Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
September
3, 2002
Nabil Amro
Leadership
& Legitimacy:
An Open Letter to Arafat
Robert Fisk
A Forgotten
Holocaust:
The British in Palestine
Uri Avnery
The Return
of the Dinosaurs
September
2, 2002
Francis Boyle
Flashback:
US War Crimes During the Gulf War
Lou Cohan
Confessions
of a Downloader
Philip Farruggio
Labor
Day Antidote to Apathy
William Blum
Cuban Political
Prisoners
in the US
September
1, 2002
Dave Marsh
No Surrender:
Springsteen's The Rising
August 31,
2002
Gavin Keeney
Return to the
Charterhouse of Parma
David Vest
Porkland:
Confronting Republicans & Police in Portland
Ralph Nader
The Highway
Lobby
M. Shahid
Alam
CNN Reporting
(poem)
Neve Gordon
Sharon's
Subjugation Strategy
Dr. Susan
Block
The Gangbang
Asthete
The Sexual Life
of Catherine M.
Kurt Nimmo
Clueless
at the State Dept.
August 30,
2002
Alexander
Cockburn
American
Journal:
Hitchens, Kissinger, Springsteen, Haggard & Elvis
August 29,
2002
Chris Floyd
The Secret
Sharers:
The CIA and the Murder of Frank Olson
August 28,
2002
William Ring
War on Iraq:
The Brightest Scenario
August 27,
2002
Sam Bahour
The Violence
of Curfew
Wenonah Hauter
From Johannesburg:
Pacts with the Devil: Public-Private Partnerships and the Global
Environment
Jerre Skog
Wanted:
"Our Kind of Guy"
in Iraq!
Uri Avnery
Letter
to a Pilot
August 26,
2002
Sami Al-Arian
Fighting
for the Right of
Dissent and Due Process
Ruebner /
Turaani
What
is Israel Hiding?
Norman Madarasz
Brazil
and the IMF:
Democracy and Emerging Market Liberalism
Robert Fisk
War Crimes:
Reporters Aren't Prosecutors
Douglas Valentine
Phoenix,
CIA and Maj. Gen. Bruce Lawlor: From Vietnam
to Homeland Security
August 24
/ 25, 2002
Susan Davis
Proverbial
Wisdom:
Of Clogs and Enron
Falk / Krieger
No War
Against Iraq
Ceylon Mooney
Fasting
for Iraq
Jonathon
Wright
Police
Brutality in Atlanta
Ralph Nader
Congress's
Pay Raise Scam
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Chainsaw
George
Alexander
Cockburn
Alterman
Cheapens Holocaust
August 23,
2002
Dave Marsh
Selling
Out?
Anthony Gancarski
Super-Duper:
Oil, al-Qaeda and a West African Adventure
William Hughes
Lieberman's
Conflict
of Interest?
Kurt Nimmo
The Lapdog
Conversion of CNN:
They Didn't Want to "Criticize" a Popular War
Sean Donahue
Hardline
in Colombia
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|