12/16/2002
T. M. Power
The Real Purpose of Bush’s Planned Invasion of Iraq
In this holiday season in which we sing of peace on earth and good will to all of humanity, the US military is actively positioning its forces around Iraq and using war games in the region to test its organizational and communications network to make sure it will support the planned invasion of Iraq.
As the White House continuously beats the drums of war, it is important that we citizens figure out just what this is all about. The White House, of course, acts as if it is obvious why we need to invade, but when its various and shifting reasons are even superficially considered, it is clear why the vast majority of the rest of the world, including most of our allies and Iraq’s neighbors, are baffled by the White House’s commitment to invade: Saddam, after all, is not the only brutal dictator in the world; Iraq is not the only nation in the world with weapons of mass destruction; there is no evidence that al-Qaeda trained in or was supported by Iraq; we have effectively contain Saddam for more than a decade without going to war; and we have proved that we can get access to all the oil we need simply by purchasing it .
So why is Bush so committed to invading Iraq? The hawks within his Administration have always been quite explicit about their real motivation. The current world situation, they argue, represents a unique American moment in history. We are the only significant military power on the planet. Our economy, currency, corporations, and culture also dominate most of the world. But, they tell us, if we wish to remain the only imperial force on the planet, we have to use that power and act like the empire we are, reinforcing our power and striking out and punishing any who seriously challenge us. Hence the new White House policy on the need for the US to engage in pre-emptive wars and be ready to use our own weapons of mass destruction to brutally punish anyone who threatens us.
This is the doctrine of the war party within the White House centered on Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. As one of their team put it in the Wall Street Journal last December[1]: “If we really intend to extinguish the [Islamic] hope that has fueled the rise of al-Qaeda and violent anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, we have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear and respect that attaches to any great power…Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home. We’ve been running from this fight for 10 years.” In other words, attacking Iraq is a strategic necessity, not because Saddam Hussein is a threat but because America needs to display an overwhelming show of force to keep unruly Arabs and Muslims all over the world in line.
This White House belief in the efficacy of force and the threat of force to get our way is to be contrasted with how the rest of the world is approaching political and economic conflicts. Europe is implementing an economic and political union that seeks to link all the nations from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Arctic to the Mediterranean together in a European commonwealth that will hopefully end centuries of destructive armed conflict on that continent. The extension of that political and economic union to Eastern Europe became possible because of the end of the Cold War where a dictatorship armed with weapons of mass destruction, one that in the past had brutally invaded its neighbors, was defeated without going to war through containment and the power of the principles and prosperity the West stood for. One could go on: Apartheid in South Africa and communism in the Soviet Union and its satellite countries were brought down without war. Most of the dictatorships in Central and South America were brought down peacefully. The Japanese and South Koreans continue to work systematically but peacefully to end the primitive dictatorship in North Korea. China is taking halting steps towards liberalization not because it is acting under military threat but because it thinks those steps will strengthen its economy and worldwide stature.
While most of the nations of the world move peacefully towards cooperation, the White House promulgates a new aggressive military doctrine of unilateral preemptive war: In short, getting our way by force. We do this at the very time that we face no serious military challenges from other countries and at the very time that we need the cooperation of almost every nation on the planet if we collectively are going reduce the threat that stateless terrorism poses to all the nations of the world.
There are many ways to develop the respect and cooperation of others. Threats of violence can enforce short-term obedience but almost never result in longer-term respect and cooperation. Those coerced into obeying simply bide their time as they await the opportunity to rebel and exact vengeance for the humiliation inflicted on them. That certainly was the history of national conflicts around the world for centuries that we sought to change after the Second World War with our conciliatory treatment of Germany and Japan and the establishment of the United Nations. Why as the rest of the world moves dramatically to build on this cooperative model the White House wants to lurch into the role of the ruling rogue nation to which no rules apply is far from clear. Instead of laying the basis for a peaceful world in which our values and accomplishments are the basis of our influence, we seem intent on building an empire the old fashioned way, by force. History teaches us how short-lived such empires tend to be.
This holiday season we need to do more than pray for “peace on earth and good will toward man.” We need in many small and large ways to let the White House know that the unilateral, pre-emptive use of violence is not how we wish to express our country’s values and influence around the world.