The Charnel House Future

I don't want to talk here about whether a full-scale attack on Iraq is right or wrong -- or whether, withall the scandals surrounding Bush&Co., the Administration is using its daily leaks and the whole Iraqdebate as giant distractions.

What I want to do here is to examine whether such attacks -- with Iraq being the most potent symbol ofAmerica's unilateral adventurism in foreign and military policy -- will further or endanger America's nationalinterests. 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'sforeign and military policy. From their vantage point, attacking Iraq will accomplish several importantnational-interest goals:

1) It will remove a dangerous, ambitious thug from the region, with his capacity for major mayhem -- whichcould well include Saddam's use of biological, chemical, and, eventually, nuclear, weapons. If he isn'tstopped now, this reasoning goes, and he chooses to blackmail his neighbors with such weaponry, he couldexercise control over a good share of the world's oil reserves, and thus threaten the economic health of thedeveloped 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/MiddleEast: 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. Becauseof all the bases set up for the Iraq attack, with some contingents of American troops stationed in the regionon a semi-permanent basis, the threat of U.S. action against other would-be recalcitrant rulers would take onmore believability.

3) Attacking Iraq gives the military a chance to try out its new, sophisticated hardware, and software, andthus hone the technologies and strategies that bolster American power around the world. Afghanistan was theprelude, but because it was carried out on such a poor, mostly non-urbanized society, a lot of the weaponrycould not be fully tested. The Afghan campaign was, and remains, a kind of high-tech guerrilla war. Taking onBaghdad and a well-armed and well-trained urban defense force would be a better test of what these weapons cando in more conventional conflicts.

4) Attacking Iraq has a domestic benefit as well. The al-Qaida mass-murder attacks of 9/11 frightened thehell out of the American populace, making clear the vulnerability of the homeland; this state of mind led toeasy acceptance of moves toward a more rigorous, militarist America, with less Constitutional constraints onAdministration actions. The "permanent war on terrorism" ensures that citizen and Congressionalcriticism 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 getpassed because it can be seen as part of "national security" and "homeland defense." Asecond Bush term is ensured. (If the attack comes before November, GOP candidates could ride the coattails ofBush, 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 integratedinto 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 theAdministration 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 termsof 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-mileagerequirements; 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 andIsrael can deal with it later, no problem.

*****

Now, what are the implications of this limited-vision thinking on short- and long-range U.S. nationalinterests?

1) So we get rid of Saddam Hussein. We have attacked yet another Arab nation, devoid of an overtprovocation. Granted, its leader is a constant nuisance and threat to U.S. and Western interests -- and thusis 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 oreven want to support him -- he's a maniacal bully who threatens their interests as well, and they'd be happyif he disappeared -- but because their own regimes will become even shakier when that Arab street erupts inprotest and the terrorist atrocities fluorish. A good share of the Arab leaders are moderates and somewhatsecular, and they realize they are bucking a strong Islamicist tide in the region. They might well be suckedinto 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 theLaw of Unintended Consequences when starting a war. Unless, that is, they've already factored-in some of thatchaos in the region. Indeed, already there is serious talk within the Administration that maybe the U.S. willthen find it necessary and convenient to assert its hegemony -- with troops on the ground, if threats don'tresult in the desired "regime changes" -- over Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, maybe evenEgypt. (It already has established its suzerainty over the Caspian Sea energy supplies, with U.S. militarybases 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 ofour doing) -- the poverty, the hopelessness, the Palestine conundrum, etc. -- we ensure that the soil in whichterrorism 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 "regimechange" 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 treatybetween the parties, security for Israel and Palestine as two equal countries, agreements over water workedout, etc. -- Hamas and similar terrorist outfits would be marginalized, and there might be less support forthe 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 vaguefuture might threaten, what you claim as your national interests, the precedent will have been establishedthat it's permissible, indeed even advisable, to attack them first, to invade if necessary, to take out theirleaders when you can. No more negotiations, or compromises, or use of international agencies or courts. TheUnited States of America, the colossus astride the globe, says it's OK to just smash and burn first, takequestions 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 buildingup anti-U.S. resentment and anger, creating conditions in which terrorism grows, ignoring and insulting ourtraditional allies (especially in Europe), risking our long-term economic and social health, and so on. In thelong run, the world is a shakier, more violent place, U.S. interests are damaged, the international economicand civil situation is more chaotic (and we all know what kind of leaders rise in chaotic times), the domesticpolitical situation in the U.S. grows more fascist-like, with a concomitant rebellion amongst key elements inthe citizenry.

In short, I fail to see any benefits, long-term for sure but even reasonable short-term ones, that wouldarise from the Bush Administration's current military and foreign policies, symbolized most immediately by itsmove toward Baghdad.

When Bush took office, surrounded by a well-seasoned, experienced Cabinet, many were willing to believethat even if Dubya himself was something of a dim bulb, the light and competence emanating from those aroundhim would lift him up and make the government look good. But after 9/11, and more recently, it seems more andmore evident that these guys, with their limited short-term blinders on, don't really know what the hellthey'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 willbecome 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 withnationalist 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, onlineanalyses, leaning on our legislators, etc. etc. -- all these and more have to be employed, for the sake of ourdemocratic republic and for the world.

The most obvious place to start is for Bush&Co.'s nose to be bloodied badly in the upcoming Novemberelections, to remove some of the Administration's aura of invincibility. (Already, polls indicate afast-dropping Bush approval rating, along with less support for an Iraq invasion; plus, the sinking economy isbeginning to affect people directly.)

I'm not saying that defeating enough Republicans to deny the House and Senate to them will be a panacea. Alot of the Democrats running are not much better. But what a Dem election victory would mean (in associationwith 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 ideologuejudges off the bench, make it easier for serious investigations of Bush&Co. crimes, scandals, bad policiesto 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 concentratedin Bush&Co. hands. So, if you have to, hold your nose and donate money and time and energy to electingDemocrats in November. (I wish the objective conditions were ripe for serious Green campaigns right now, butthey aren't; the most we can hope for at this moment in time is to move things back toward the middle.) We canget 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 athome, and to help create the conditions that will lead to their removal from office, by the ballot or byresignation/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 WashingtonUniversity and San Diego State University; he was with the San Francisco Chronicle fornearly 20 years, and has published in The Nation, Village Voice, Progressive, and widely on theinternet.