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."