The Shadow War
Like a growing number of my fellow citizens, I take it as a given that if we go to war in Iraq, it will not be because of technical issues related to disarmament, sketchy links between Saddam and September 11th, or for human rights reasons. The evidence the Administration uses to support these claims are so flimsy as to be laughable, which leaves people to wonder whether Bush is so stupid that he actually believes his own specious arguments, or is there something he’s not saying? Oil, revenge for Papa, covering up old dirty secrets, and generally forwarding American business interests are popular theories on the Left, who are not inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt in any case. But consider for a moment the possibility that Bush may have the genuine desire to act in America’s interest against Islamist terrorism. There is a very strong case to be made why attacking Iraq will directly aid in that effort, and some very good reasons why that case is not being made.
Anyone who’s paying attention understands that while Iraq may or may not be up to no good, Al Qaida clearly represents a direct threat to American security, and indeed the security of the entire Western world. Since Al-Qaida operatives are stateless, they have no cities to bomb, no land to seize. Finding and taking action against the leadership is a long, slow and uncertain job – one that negates most of the overwhelming advantages that the United States military enjoys in conventional conflicts.
To the extent that our real enemies have flags and borders, they are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Both of these countries have given material, ideological, financial and political support to radical Islamist movements, and both are ruled by jittery oligarchies whose authority rests on a very narrow basis of support. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, plus who knows what else. And does anyone doubt that Saudi Arabia, whose aggressive acquisition of conventional military technology is legendary, does not also have secret WMD programs ongoing? Should either of these unstable regimes collapse, the most likely replacements are militant fundamentalists deeply hostile to Western interests and intimately sympathetic with Al Qaida. This would create a scenario much more dangerous to American safety and interests than anything that Saddam could manage, even if he were unleashed and fully armed.
All of the things we say we want for Iraq – disarmament, stopping support of terrorists, democracy and human rights – would serve our purposes all the better if imposed instead (or in addition) on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Of course, unlike the obnoxious Saddam, the rulers of these countries have surpassed all standards of decorum in their obsequious compliance to US policy. Even the most fervent unilateralist in the Bush Administration would hesitate to target them outright because there is not the slightest shred of a diplomatic pretext. So we are faced with Iraq on the one hand, where there’s plenty of grounds for attack but no actual terrorist problem beyond guilt-by-association, and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the other, where there is a critical problem but no way for the US to introduce a military solution short of complete naked and unprovoked aggression.
Iraq has, through the stupidity and arrogance of Saddam Hussein, provided a convenient means to introduce massive US military power into the Persian Gulf. From this vantage point, it would be much easier for America to exert geopolitical influence over Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, and the areas of the former Soviet Union that may be in some danger of succumbing to Islamist influence. Direct presence in the region would allow us to bring to bear all the military, technological, cultural and financial assets necessary to maximize our chances of success in diffusing the very real threat posed by Islamism and its terrorist proponents. Whether this is a legal or ethical course of action is highly debatable, but at least it has the merit of compelling logic, unlike most of the utterances made by the Administration on this topic.
If this is the eventual goal of US policy, then Bush’s insistence on war makes perfect sense. The problem is, the obvious sensitivities of the global situation make it impossible to conduct the debate on these terms. We cannot simply announce our intentions to become an imperial power and seek the overthrow of governments who are ostensibly our allies. So Bush is left having to justify his decisions based on the narrow pretext offered by the Iraq situation, leaving supporters and critics alike to shadow-box with arguments that, in fact, have nothing to do with our real aims and strategies. This is especially unfortunate in the effect it has on our democracy. If we are about to establish a military empire in the Middle East, we ought to discuss it. But we can’t as long as Bush and his minions continue to insist that the reasons for war lie elsewhere.
5:26:40 PM 
|
|
