September 11, Crisis Resolution

Articles

Interviews

Letters

Responses to September 11th

Speeches

Site Update January 13, 2003
By Pamela Harris

America's March to War: Short-term Gains Courting Long-term Disaster

Dennis J. D. Sandole
ICAR Professor

There are at least three scenarios in terms of which a likely U.S. war with Iraq can be explained. According to the first of these, which may be the most likely, U.S. President George W. Bush has pulled off a remarkable feat: he has gone from being president of less
than 50 percent of the American voting public to being president of most, if not all Americans, including the Democratic Party leadership in both Houses of Congress. This, right before the
upcoming November elections in which the Republican Party seems destined to win back control of the Senate, allowing a strengthened George Bush to pursue his presidental agenda
with fewer constraints.

President Bush has done all this by deftly taking advantage of the bolt of lightening delivered to him out of the blue by the tragic events of 11 September 2001. The U.S. and Americans had been assaulted in a way unparalleled since the War of 1812. But this time, it was not by the British -- they are Bush's primary ally in the current drama. Instead, 19 young Arab (Wahabist) men with boxcutters dared to "think outside the box" and succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and in the process, gave Bush his ticket.

After the hijacked passenger-filled airliners went careening into their targets like cruise missiles, it was clear that the President had to do something -- and to be seen to be doing something --
comparable to the gravity of the horrific events of the day.

Thus, the "war on terror," was launched against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, hosts to likely 911 mastermind Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network and training centers.

Militarily, it was fairly easy for the U.S, with its immense power resources, and its British, Canadian, Australian and other allies, to rout the clumsy, archaic Taliban. What has not been easy has been to "build the peace" in post-Taliban Afghanistan, especially since an international peacekeeping force exists only in the capital, Kabul. warlords have been returning to exert control of other parts of the country. In addition, it was not clear if Osama bin Laden was dead
or alive and if alive, where he might be. Then, further complexity set in.

Although the U.S. was "declared" to "be at war," it did not really feel or look that way to most Americans. True, airport security had been tightened up, armed air marshalls were on board some flights, but by and large, most Americans were not experiencing the privations normally associated with "being at war." (Exceptions, of course, are those Arab and Muslim Americans and those who ‘look’ Arabic or Muslim who have been detained, interrogated, and harrassed
by law enforcement or subjected to hate-crimes.)

Enter Saddam Hussein! A nasty piece of work if there ever was one who really does have "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) -- at least chemical and biological ones -- which he has used against his own Kurdish population during the 1980s. But this is the same nasty piece of work who was supported militarily by the U.S. and others during the Iran-Iraq war, forcing us to recall Churchill's famous comment about Josef Stalin to President Roosevelt that, yes,"Stalin is a son-of-a-bitch, but at least he is our son-of-a-bitch!"

Clearly, Saddam Hussein is no longer "our son-of-a-bitch." George W. Bush, like his father before him, has marketed a war against this evil man with such breathtaking success that to even question whether less bellicose means have been exhausted, is to risk incurring charges of non-Patriotism if not treason.

In this regard, President Bush is merely the most recent in a long list of political leaders who have manufactured or marketed "The Enemy" for political reasons; as a way to rally otherwise apathetic or discontented constituents around a common cause. What could be
better for him, given that we have not gotten the guy who did 911 to us, than to go after a "traditional nation-state enemy" that we can attack, destroy, and occupy, while post-911patriotic fervor is still in the air?

The problem is, if this is an election ploy, the President may win back the Senate and become president of "all the people" -- short-term gains to be sure. But, playing out this scenario further, as Bush prepares to tell the post-November election world that, despite the earlier talk of war, he intends to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq, Saddam just may call Bush's bluff and, adopting Bush's own pre-emptive strategy, start launching attacks on U.S. forces in the Gulf and at Israel, thereby forcing Bush to become militarily engaged. However, unlike in 1991, this time it would be house-to-house fighting in the capital of Baghdad, where even
diehard Saddam opponents may decide that the Americans have gone too far.

In other words, Bush's war rhetoric may unwittingly create a self-fulfilling dynamic that makes a "real" war with Iraq more rather than less likely. This would even be the case if, according to a second scenario, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were playing "bad cop" to the "good cop" of the Germans, French, Russians, and others, in an effort to intimidate Saddam through threat of war into allowing UN inspectors unrestricted access to all sites, including presidental palaces.

According to a third scenario, perhaps the least likely one, if neither an election ploy nor a bluff, and Bush and Blair are really prepared to go to war against this evil dictator to rid the world of him and his WMD -- perhaps even gaining access to Iraq's vast oil reserves in the process -- they would do well to listen to the sensible voices of General Wesley Clark, General Anthony Zinni and others who have actually been under fire, that a war with Iraq at this time would have
the impact of undermining the war on terrorism, exacerbating the Middle East conflict, and further angering Muslims and Arabs worldwide.

Even without exploring the "Clash-of-Civilizations" implications of this type of development, just imagine, if Afghanistan will require 20-30 years to be rebuilt, what will it take to build the peace
in a devastated, destabilized Iraq. Are Americans ready for that kind of commitment, not to mention the thorny issue of accepting, in the short run, high levels of casualties?

Instead of entering into this quagmire, the U.S. should be focusing its efforts on combatting terrorism by, as General Wesley Clark has recommended, dealing with the deep-rooted causes of terrorism, one of which happens to be the Middle East conflict. But thus far, at least as far as the U.S. Government is concerned, Einstein is still right: "Everything has changed with the atom [and 911] except the way we think!"