Current Book: Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
It appears that Barack Obama may very well clinch the democratic party presidential nomination this week, or so one can hope. As we look forward to a milestone in the primary process I think this is a particularly opportune moment to contemplate a more sober milestone in our recent history: the political campaign undertaken by the bush administration to (successfully) lead the nation into a historic occupation of Iraq. It is this war, the ruinous pinnacle of an ideology ginned up by american oligarchs for their own benefit, which guarantees that the upcoming presidential election is arguably the most critical since the ascent of Lincoln.
Starting in October of 2002 and continuing through March 2003, I had a debate via email with my corporate attorney JMW, a fairly firm believer in the ideology of the aforementioned oligarchs. My friend and fellow musician TL also lurked in on the conversation, and made a welcomed contribution at one point. TL went on to study business law himself.
JMW wrote: What’s your take on his evaluation of Powell? [I believe this was in reference to Harry Belafonte referring to Colin Powell as a house slave.]
FB wrote: Hey JMW,
Unless the whole iraq thing is a shrewdly calculated game of high-stakes, geopolitical chicken I’m very disappointed with Powell’s support of that policy. Unfortunately, with the evidence showing the cheney-rumsfeld-wolfowitz-axis pushing for ‘regime change’ in iraq since at least the time of the clinton administration, I’m disinclined to believe that W is that smart.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call Mr. Powell a house-slave, he has been one of the few voices of moderation on this issue. However, I can understand how this whole thing can ilicit very strong feelings and depending on how far Mr. Powell is willing to tow the line, the house-slave analogy might not be inaccurate. I think we’re dealing with a very grave issue, namely will the U.S. adopt an imperialist stance cloaked in 21st century rhetoric, and will we pursue actions based on this stance which I believe could sow the seeds of WWIII.
JMW wrote: Yeah, but aren’t cabinet officials supposed to publicly tow the line, white or black? It’s been leaked for months that privately, Powell has been off the “hawk” reservation. Publicly, however, he does what any loyal cabinet official – tout administration policy.
Even when Patrick Moynihan (sp?), a Democrat, was in Nixon’s cabinet, he never publicly strayed from administration policy. But that doesn’t make him an Irish chamber maid.
[A few months later, in March 2003 I sent JMW a link to a Newsweek article (no longer available) and our debate about the war was renewed.]
JMW wrote: I disagree with the premise of his article – “they oppose us because we’re powerful and they fear us.” I side with those cited in the article who “make the argument that Europeans are now pacifists, living in a ‘postmodern paradise,’ shielded from threats and unable to imagine the need for military action.”
I’ll avoid a long diatribe by concluding: Defending peace should never be the subject of a popular vote. Churchill faced similar retorts from 1935-39 while urging the British to oppose German rearmament and to rearm Britian – i.e. that the population overwhelmingly opposed war. He responded, saying “national security is the prime directive of any government, and requires no mandate from the people.” Blair has taken this to heart, and refuses to become another Chamberlain.
Failing to use force in response to a threat because a majority oppose it, has the same pathos as not building hospitals because you oppose disease – i.e. the disease is coming whether you like it or not. You can prepare for it, or you can not.
After all, with the exception of the defeat of the Nazis, fascism, socialism, and communism, war has never solved anything.
FB wrote: I think you missed the point of the article entirely. The premise of the article is that the bush administration’s particular brand of diplomacy has caused severe geopolitical isolation at a time when it is paramount that we lead the world by consensus through the very international institutions that *we* founded for this purpose. Unfortunately, it seems to clear to me, and to many others around the globe, that bush made up his mind about invading Irag before attempting any diplomacy. When things didn’t go his way, he labeled the UN ‘irrelevant’. This is the sham that is arrogant in nature. The UN was not founded to be a rubberstamp puppet parliament for the US, and to treat it as such will foster enmity from those countries who we would usually find to be more willing to align their interest with ours (the whole point of diplomacy).
I also disagree with the pacifist argument. Would one argue that Russia is pacifist, with their ongoing and bloody war against terrorists in chechnya? How about China, one of the most militaristic regimes on the planet? I think the pacifist label is misdirected even in the case of France, who have shown themselves to be quite willing to pursue military action in the case of their African quasi-colonies, and in the balkans under the UN banner. The only country that one could plausibly argue falls in the pacifist camp would be Germany, but even they actively supported the first gulf war.
No, the issue is not pacifism, but national and supra-national interests. Russia and France both have substantial economic ties to Iraq, and just as important, have large muslim populations in their midst. Thus their interests do not necessarily coincide with our own. Plus, France and Germany see part of their role as counter-acting US power via the UN and EU for this very reason. Terrorism is no stranger to continental Europe and the UK, but with their muslim populations and proximity to the middle east they have to deal with it differently. Our diplomatic failure was not providing them with a compromise that protects their vital interests as well as ours.
Obviously, I’m finding it very difficult to avoid a long diatribe 😉 I find it very interesting that you mention Churchill who may have faced similar retorts, but a very different scenario. Note that Churchill was advising that britain rearm herself *in case* of renewed german aggression (deterrence). To my knowledge (which happens to be pretty extensive in this area), Mr. Churchill *never* called for britain and her allies to launch a pre-emptive strike against Germany. For him to do so would have violated both the letter and spirit of the treaty of versailles, despite German re-armament, and the consensus of how democracies are to conduct war that has been at least implicit since the time of Jefferson. In fact, the second world war did not begin until the territorial aggression on the part of Germany.
Thus we come to the heart of the matter. As a student of military history and geopolitics, I am no pacifist, and am in fact very much in favor of maintaining an unassailable military advantage. This is one of the few things that our central government can do well, and it should not fail at this task. However, the new doctrine now being established by bush and his cronies is essentially a fancy version of ‘might makes right’. The idea that the US is claiming for itself the right to change ‘regimes’ at will and launch pre-emptive strikes absent an irrefutable imminent threat or territorial aggression is a startling change in both our explicit and implicit foreign policy. In my opinion, this new policy is also an unprincipled, arrogant, and dangerous one.
The war in Iraq is not about terrorism directly, although that is the official rhetoric. I haven’t heard one substantial shred of evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat of the type bush seems so fond of repeating. This man committed territorial aggression, but has not done so since the first gulf war (which I wholeheartedly supported). If that’s not containment then what the hell is? No, this war is about projecting American power in the heart of the middle east by means meant to scare the shit out of our enemies. Let’s call it what it is. Put into laymans terms, what we’re saying is if we don’t like your government you better get with the program or we’re going to come in and kick your ass. We have taken it upon ourselves to reshape the world in a manner more to our liking and strategic interests, through the mechanism of war specifically. In this sense we have embarked upon a new phase of empire building. And just because we have good intentions doesn’t make it a better idea than when it was pursued by imperialist Britain, Japan, Germany, or Rome.
Unfortunately, I believe that our pursuit of this policy will make the world a more dangerous place for Americans, not a safer one. In fact, my study of geopolitics leads me to conclude that there is a rather uncomfortable probability that this misguided policy will put into motion a complex evolution of events culminating in WWIII. This is a new empire that I want no part of.
JMW wrote: First, humor: “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.”
Now, seriousness:
Yeah, never meant to imply that Russian or China were pacifists – just Europe. And as to France’s actions in Africa, I must differ with your contention that they were carried out with the imprimatur of the UN. My understanding was that they acted without consulting the UN and/or the security council, as this has been the rebuttal to France dubbing the US “unilateralist.”
As to Churchill, I consider myself a self-taught expert on the man. He did in fact urge action against Germany for its rearmament, and really stepped up the rhetoric when Germany reoccupied the Rheinland in violation of the terms of surrender as embodied in the Treaty of Versailles. Iraq similarly is violating its terms of surrender, and deserves “preemptive” action.
Also, I differ with the contention that Bush is acting “preemptively” (although he couches it in those terms to when pandering to the public’s short attention span). To the contrary, he is enforcing the terms of surrender from 1991. Iraq’s violation of the terms is the instigating act, causing our actions not to be “preemptive” but rather reactive.
Finally, it seems that your contention is, that the rest of the World has the largest case of penis envy since A&M focused on beating UT as its sole source of school spirit; and for some reason, the US should pander to the World’s feelings of injured pride, as irrational as those feelings may be. Well hell: How do you respond to that? My first thought would be to tell them to build a military, and maybe the world will listen to you – Hell, it worked for the Russians for 50 years.
Which brings me to another point – I’m tired of the slogan “might doesn’t make right”; As if “mighty” and “right” are mutually exclusive. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the US is “mighty” because we’ve been on the “right” side of the issues so often? Just ask the Russians who were on the “wrong” side of the issues so often. The US is time tested.
FB wrote: Ha, I’ve heard that one before.
I only meant that French participation in the balkans was under the imprimatur of the UN. Plenty of countries have taken ‘unilateral’ action in their own interests. Russia in Chechnya, the US in Grenada, France in Africa, etc. The similarity in all of these cases was that they were small scale and isolated, and none of them really fell under the realm of the UN- meaning there were no existing UN resolutions or treaties of surrender, so no one really cared. The Iraq situation is different in terms of the sheer scale, strategic importance, geopolitical implications, the fact that a major war was already fought under a UN coalition, and the treaty of surrender was negotiated and enforced under the auspices of the UN.
Absolutely correct. The key here is the territorial aggression and the explicit violation of the treaty of surrender. Also, Churchill not only prodded his own government to act, but he urged all the governments who were party to the treaty of surrender to enforce its prohibitions. Also, Churchill was a consumate diplomat and understood the purpose and importance of diplomacy. When he couldn’t get the versailles coalition to agree with his assessment of the new german threat he didn’t berate or belittle them, at least not in public. Perhaps that was because he understood that Britain couldn’t take the fight on herself, but even it could have, why do so if it’s not necessary? I wouldn’t even put bush in the same ballpark as Churchill when it comes to leadership in matters of national security and international diplomacy. We’re talking little league vs. the majors.
I could believe that if it weren’t for the fact that the original, publicly stated goal of the bush adminstration was ‘regime change’ and not enforcement of the treaty of surrender (disarmament). I have no problem with enforcing the terms of surrender, and in fact think that it is imperative that we do so and not repeat the mistake of the allies in tolerating german re-armament until hitler posed a serious threat. However, the terms of surrender were negotiated under the auspices of the UN and thus should be enforced by the UN. And most conspicously, the Iraq terms of surrender say nothing about removing the Baath regime from power.
One must ask, if the bush administration’s goal was enforcement of the treaty of surrender then why the complete lack of interest in the plan put forth by France and Germany that basically called for a military inspection regime? Under this plan the UN would have posited a large occupying force in Iraq along with the inspectors. Indeed, the Russia/France/China/Germany coalition kept bringing up this idea until the very end. How the hell would Saddam have re-armed under such a scenario? And if he had thwarted this plan, I find it utterly implausible that it would not have resulted in a large-scale UN military intervention.
The only plausible reason why the bush administration failed to even consider such a plan was because it did not share the same goal. Basically, for the sake of political cover (especially needed for tony blair) the bush gang tried to get the UN to provide the US with carte blanche authority to remove the Baath regime. When some folks on the UN security council declined to do so, we decided the UN was irrelevent. That’s not diplomacy, that is a deliberate sham.
I guess the true test of whether this is merely ‘treaty enforcement’, or marks the first implementation of a more sinister doctrine, will be after the war is over. My interpretation of the bush national security document (which you should read if you haven’t already) and his own words are that we will be applying this policy of ‘pre-emptive right’ wherever there are rogue regimes that could possibly pose a danger to us sometime in the future. Iran and North Korea come to mind. If this isn’t the last but the first in a series of wars then I’m right, case closed.
No, that’s not my contention [the penis envy argument]. It may be that many in the world are envious of our power, but that’s not the point. I’m not going to restate all the reasons why diplomacy is a good thing, even for the world’s lone superpower, *especially* for the world’s lone superpower. I think the article does an excellent job in that regard. However, I will say that one of the best ways to maintain an unassailable military advantage is to convince other countries that it is not even worth trying to match our military might- and in fact they would be better off aligning themselves with us and getting some of the goodies of aid and trade with the world’s largest economy. This is something that can only be accomplished through diplomacy.
Ask yourself this. Would you rather live in a world where as an American you are greeted with respect and kindness on your world travels? Where you are able to pursue business interest all over the globe, and people actively seek your business? Or one where you are afraid to leave your own borders, or even travel to NYC out of fear for your safety. I believe this new policy and lack of diplomacy is more likely to produce a world like the latter rather than the former.
[In response to JMW’s assertion that the US has not only been right, but time tested.] I’m not sure I agree with that at all. The US, or more specifically US administrations, have been on the wrong side of things many times, both on domestic and international matters. Let’s not forget who propped up the Baath regime in its fight against the khomeni regime of Iran (that would be us). The fact is, might and right are not mutually exclusive, but they are not mutually inclusive either. The absence or presence of overwhelming might is not a moral justification for anything at all.
JMW wrote: O.K., I’m presenting a new issue, if I may:
Which would you classify as more pure: America’s motives for promoting war, or the French motives for opposing it?
AND, that begs the question:
Which would you classify as a more genuine reflection of true motives:
Bush’s public statements in favor of war, or Jacque Chirac’s against it?
TL wrote: I agree with you whole-heartedly, FB. The new U.S. doctrine of military preemption was brewed up mostly by Paul Wolfowitz, who saw the potential benefits of having our national finger on ALL of the world’s weapons programs, so that they could be monitored and rooted out. In a way, it makes sense. The sheer vastness of the devastation that a nuclear war would cause almost calls for a witch hunt- as we’re seeing now (“Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?”, the international community asks. “Well, they certainly would if they could, and that’s good enough for us”, answers the US). But Wolfowitz and his cronies underestimate the cleverness and resourcefulness of extremists- who are the real enemy of the U.S.. If we had a policy of carefull watchfulness, terrorists would still have it in for us, but only with a general sense of anti-Americanism. But with this new policy of preemption, we’re putting our “controlled by the USA” stamp on every holy piece of land from North Korea to Cuba. Anybody who’s ever studied war knows that people do not stand aside and let their destinies be controlled without a fight.
The extremists start the wars, and the rest of us pay the consequences.
FB wrote: First, let me amend my last statement a bit. I didn’t mean to imply that geopolitics can or should conform to simple codes of morality. There are always many shades of gray, and the truth is this about power and the balance of power.
However, there should be a set of accepted bedrock principles that drive our international conduct and that should set the boundaries for what we are willing to do. I think this is especially true for something with as serious implications as a policy of ‘pre-emptive regime change’, for lack of a better phrase.
[In response to JMW question regarding bush/chiraq motives] My analysis does not conform to those terms. Everyone at the UN has their own motives (re national interests), sometimes these are compatible with ours and sometimes they are not. As far as I’m concerned, the core issue has nothing to do with France. That is simply a case of failed diplomacy.
The way I see it, the core issue is whether or not a policy of ‘pre-emptive regime change’ is a good idea or not. I think it is a very dangerous and arrogant policy, that has no grounding, moral or otherwise, in our democratic tradition. I think it lacks any legitimacy whatsoever, and the arguments put forth to support it basically boil down to ‘might makes right’. Perhaps Mr. Chirac thinks the very same thing, and having seen through our diplomatic sham was intent on doing his best to thwart us at every turn. There’s no way to know, and I don’t think it really matters.
Motives are not relevant to this discussion, as everyone at the international table is primarily motivated by their own national interests. Let’s deal strictly with cause and effect. I’m sure bush thinks he’s doing the right thing, but that in and of itself doesn’t make it right or the best course of action. If we take for ourselves the exclusive right to determine whether or not a regime is not only tyrannical or despotic, but deserves the sharp end of our military stick absent an imminent threat or territorial aggression, we have crossed a line that I believe will lead us, and the world as a whole, down a very dangerous path indeed.
I think that gentlemen of good faith can disagree on this matter. However, I think we can agree that we should both hope that I’m wrong- because if I’m even close to being right we’re in for some dire times ahead.
I will end this debate with a quote I stole from a recent article on the
subject:
President Eisenhower in 1953, who was presented with a plan to disarm Stalin ’s Soviet Union. He said: “All of us have heard this term ‘preventive war’ since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time…I don’t believe there is such a thing; and frankly, I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.”
JMW wrote: I liked the Eisenhower quote.
By the way, didn’t we preemptively remove Noriega from Panama? I seem to remember that the justification for that regime change turned on Noriega’s facilitation of drug importation to the U.S.
FB wrote: Another timely article on msnbc.com [no longer available]. The brilliant Mr.
Schlesinger makes two very important and chilling points: first, that the Japanese used the same policy we are now pursuing to justify Pearl Harbor. Secondly, that bush and his cronies are complete idealogues.
JMW wrote: Lord, I wouldn’t throw stones in the glass house of the ideologues . . . And don’t you dare try to paint yourself a pragmatist.
FB wrote: Actually, I do consider myself a pragmatist- at least in the sense that I don’t adhere to any formal or informal school of thought. My contention has always been, and remains, that the policy in question is a misguided and dangerous one. I came to this conclusion based on my study and understanding of geopolitical history, particularly military history.
There are many people close to me who had a severe aversion to bush even before he gained office. I am not one of them. I didn’t vote for him, but after the controversial election, I was totally neutral and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Basically my attitude was, now that in your office give me a tax cut and let’s see what else you do. I think I expressed this to you before.
It wasn’t until the culmination of this whole Iraq business that I changed my opinion. I was hoping that bush was playing a brilliant game of geopolitical brinksmanship, and actually believed this might be the case until very recently.
My intention was to show you through my arguments that I’m not in the same camp as the typical ‘bush bashers’ or anti-war cadres. I don’t believe this war is about oil*, or any other such nonsense. This was an attempt on my part to enumerate what I think are powerful arguments for why this war is both unjustified and potentially pernicious in its long term effects.
*Additional Note June 2, 2008: Actually, the reason Iraq is of any strategic interest at all to the U.S. and worthy of an occupation is directly related to it’s status as a major oil producer and to bush’s status as a champion of the petrocarbon-capitalists members of the american oligarchy. What I meant was that the war was not designed to secure Iraqi oil for american industry in a simple and direct fashion.
Ma Famille 