Posted on 24-9-2002
Out
of History Into History
By William Rivers Pitt (see photo), Monday, 23 September, 2002
Some will tell you the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin
Wall.
Others will say it ended when the Soviet Union finally collapsed,
when
their breed of communism was cast aside in favor of free-enterprise
democracy. In truth, the Cold War finally ended this past week,
when the
Bush administration chose to reframe the strategic posture of
the American
military away from the concept of deterrence.
Replacing that time-tested and diplomatically pliable stance
are two steel
fists. One declares the United States supreme over all nations,
now and
forever, and warns the world that we will never allow another
nation to
come close to matching our power. The other bluntly proclaims
that we will
attack any nation, at any time, in a pre-emptive fashion, if
we so choose.
The language of the document codifying this new reality, which
is entitled
"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,"
is bland
and warm and fuzzy and relatively obscure. No surprise there,
as the
majority of the text is culled and polished snippets of speeches
delivered
by George W. Bush since September 11, 2001. It calls for peace
between
nations, brotherhood, economic freedom, the advancement of human
rights,
and the unquestionable fact that we are the biggest dog on the
lot, forever
and ever, amen.
Hoo-rah. This will doubtlessly go over well with a majority
of Americans,
and why not? We were viciously attacked, and must warn the world
that we
will swing the big stick if anyone should ever think of attacking
us again.
Besides, we are already the greatest nation in the history of
the planet,
no? There should be no shame in coming right out and saying
it. Pax
Americana shall enshroud the globe like eagle's wings. As the
preamble to
this remarkable document states, "The United States will use
this moment of
opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe.
We will
actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free
markets,
and free trade to every corner of the world."
The devil, as ever, is in the details. "The U.S. national security
strategy," reads the document, "will be based on a distinctly
American
internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our
national
interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world
not just
safer but better."
Consider the unrestrained arrogance of this statement. American
military
might and economic influence shall endeavor to make the world
better...for
America. There is little room within these words for the wishes
and values
of sovereign nations such as China and Russia, or national collectives
like
the European Union. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder,
and if any
nation should come to decide that the American version of "better"
is
unacceptable, the new National Security Strategy leaves little
doubt what
our response will be:
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive
actions to
counter a sufficient threat to our national security," reads
the document.
"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction
- and the more
compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend
ourselves,
even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the
enemy's attack.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries,
the United
States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
Essentially, the new doctrine for American national security
offered by
the Bush administration erases all borders, along with several
centuries
worth of respect for territorial, cultural and governmental
sovereignty.
Despite several sunshine-filled sentences praising NATO and
the United
Nations, this strategy would seem to offer little say for anyone
but the
American government and the American military. My way or the
highway. With
us or against us. Pick your phrase.
By threatening to unilaterally attack anyone we choose, the
Bush
administration has threatened the entire international community.
In
stating that American values and an American concept of what
constitutes a
"better" world shall define the playing field, we cast aside
respect for
any nation that would dare exist within its own cultural or
economic
sphere. By demanding that no nation, anywhere, attempt to strengthen
themselves, and by framing that demand with threats of war,
we invite
deadly challenges from governments that do not take kindly to
having their
futures dictated to them. Shot through it all is the premise
that diplomacy
is a waste of time, that treaties are for suckers, and that
any nation that
dares to try and play by American rules will have its back decisively
broken.
The Cold War ended with the publication of this document, and
a new one
was born in its place. The deterrence strategy we employed against
the
Soviet Union has been replaced with naked, threatening aggression
against
the entirety of the global community. Such a move will never
bring peace,
but will cause us to arm ourselves to an ever-greater degree
in the face of
international contempt. America, already trapped in a bunker
mentality
after 9/11, with be further ostracized from the international
community.
The walls will grow higher.
As always with this administration, there is more than one game
afoot.
George W. Bush has presented to Congress a proposed resolution
regarding
his intentions towards the nation of Iraq. Like his recent address
to the
United Nations, this would seem to be a defeat - the Bush administration
spent the summer declaring that they would make war against
Iraq without
Congressional approval, and without any sort of official UN
resolution on
the matter. Congressional pressure, as well as some dispiriting
poll
numbers which indicated that the American people were not with
him on this
game plan, forced Bush to back down. He went to the UN, and
has now gone to
Congress for approval.
If the Bush administration has its way, however, that seeming
defeat will
be a temporary thing. The new strategic plan outlined above,
if acted upon,
unilaterally does away with any influence the UN may hold. The
resolution
sent to Congress, if accepted as it stands, will effectively
remove
Congress as a deliberative body from any war decisions made
by America, and
will give Bush carte blanche to make war on any nation he wishes.
Despite
the gloss, the resolution is about much more than Iraq.
The resolution demands that Bush be given the ability to "use
all means
that he determines to be appropriate, including force...to defend
the
national security interests of the United States against the
threat posed
by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the
region."
Someone once said that laws are only as good as the people who
would
enforce them. If Congress passes this resolution with that purposefully
opaque reference to "the region" intact, they will have given
George W.
Bush a veneer of legal protection for any aggressive action
he might take.
"Region" does not mean Iraq. "Region" means Iraq, Iran, Saudi
Arabia,
Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan for starters. We know that
his foreign
policy is currently being run by neo-conservative hawks like
Richard Perle,
Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, men who would
love nothing
more than to re-write the map of that "region" by instigating
total war,
and damn the consequences.
As it always seems to do, the argument comes down to trust in
motives.
Peace and international cooperation is not on the agenda, as
is evident by
his reaction to Saddam Hussein's offer to allow weapons inspectors
back
into Iraq. Bush scored a major victory there - his bombast and
threats
browbeat a tyrant into compliance - but before the ink dried
on the offer
his administration dismissed it as a joke and continued to prepare
for
unilateral aggression. That alone exposes his motives, and they
are not to
be trusted in any sense.
The setbacks Bush absorbed by having to pander to Congress and
the UN are
temporary. If he gets his way on these two matters, he will
have the
dangerously legal ability to act in ways utterly antithetical
to the best
interests of this country. Another set of confrontations, with
Congress and
with the UN, is in the offing because of these plans.
Already, Democrats in the House and Senate are preparing to
resist the
language of the resolution as stated. Senator Patrick Leahy
has released a
statement that states, "The draft language is so open-ended
that it could
authorize anything from backing up weapons inspectors to a unilateral
attack, and beyond." Leahy's statement goes on to note, "The
negotiations
at the United Nations are still ongoing, and we do not know
what type of
military action the Administration wants to take, or what costs
and risks
to our national interests are involved. At this point there
do not seem to
be answers to even basic questions about the conditions that
would trigger
warfare." The reference to the United Nations is telling.
Nineteen Democratic House members have couched their opposition
to the
Bush administration's plans in terms less diplomatic than Leahy's.
Jim
McDermott, Democrat from Washington, has said, "I am very skeptical
of this
whole operation and have the feeling that it has much more to
do with oil
than anything else." Marcy Kaptur, Democrat from Ohio, has said,
"Naked
aggression is not the American way. America, wake up." Many
other Democrats
have voiced similar concern. The likelihood that the Bush administration
will be able to barnstorm this resolution through Congress is
questionable.
Congress seems likely to link any approval for war on Iraq with
a UN
resolution approving of same. This will open the door for entities
like the
European Union to make themselves powerfully heard on the world
stage. The
EU's future will be badly disrupted by the new strategic plan
offered by
the Bush administration, and their influence would be gutted
if Bush
chooses to ignore the UN and push towards war unilaterally.
The stage is set. Congress stands on one end, the fate of its
viability
resting on its willingness to give Bush the ability to bypass
them and the
world in pursuit of battle. The European Union and the rest
of the
international community stands on the other, facing an America
that would
force its culture and imperial designs down their collective
throats. The
Bush administration sits foursquare in the middle of the mess
it has made.
If they win this confrontation, this nation will never be the
same. If they
lose, their credibility and standing will have been seriously
diminished.
One way or another, though, the endgame will be played out.
In the words
of Robert Penn Warren, we shall go "out of history into history
and the
awful responsibility of Time."
|