(YellowTimes.org) - The symbolism was impossible to miss. The President of
the United States traveled across an ocean to confer with his British partner
in multiple wars against Iraq, collective security, and self-determination.
George W. Bush and Tony Blair could have met anywhere -- London, Madrid, Geneva,
etc. -- but instead chose Belfast.
Yes, Belfast.
How do you keep a straight face when you discuss what you call the "liberation" of the Iraqi people by discussing strategy in the very place where the British subjugation of the Irish people remains at its most palpable? How do you keep from giggling when you proclaim the unity of Iraq while standing in a place where people of different but very similar faiths have been violently divided by the meddling of a foreign invader? How do you expect anyone to believe that you will not set Shiites and Sunnis against each other when you ignore -- or pretend to ignore -- the facts of Catholic-Protestant enmity in Northern Ireland?
In Bush's case, it probably helps that he almost certainly had no idea of the immense symbolic gaffe committed by his own staff and that of Canis Familiaris Brittannicus. But what is the latter's excuse?
Most of the world is at best deeply worried, and at worst firmly convinced, that the Anglo-American adventure in Iraq is a portent of much misery to come, both in that unfortunate country and in other Muslim nations -- as well as in the United States and Britain. The dangers are many and murderous: civil war in Iraq, another American-led onslaught against an inconvenient regime in the Middle East (Syria? Iran?), retaliation by Islamic militants, etc.
There is much justification for the widespread impression that the U.S. and
the British governments are using the rhetoric of "democracy" to cover
up a modern day exercise in old-fashioned imperialism. The priority should be
to dispel these notions by demonstrating sensitivity to these concerns and then
acting in such a manner on the ground as to prove that the invasion was a necessary
evil to be followed by magnanimous help in reconstruction and a speedy withdrawal.
Instead, Bush and Blair chose to spit on their detractors' fears and to bathe
in the stench of colonialism. That sends an unfortunate message to the rest
of the world, but especially to Arab governments and Arab peoples wondering
where the next attack will take place.
Donald Rumsfeld's fantasies about total American hegemony over the world, starting
with the Middle East, would be amusing if they were not so worrisome. He and
the rest of the extremists who have captured Bush's limited imagination are
selling damaged goods at prices that no one has even begun to discuss. What
Rumsfeld proposes, and what Bush has begun to implement, is folly of the highest
order because a) it is impossible; and b) attempting to do it will cause hatred
for the United States, and therefore threats against Americans and their interests,
to spread like wildfire. The world, especially America, will be anything but
safer.
The Bush Doctrine, as it has evolved since Sept. 11, 2001, is amazingly exclusionary
to the rights of other nation-states. This is no surprise, given that his administration
had already reneged on various treaties and entered into needless conflicts
with other governments, including some of its closest allies. Where the radical
change has taken place is in the extent to which Washington has been willing
to claim privileges for itself that don't just pose distinct threats to the
barest rights of foreign countries: They obviate even the possibility of other
people having any rights at all.
Essentially, the Bush administration has made clear that it is willing to oppose
most -- if not all -- of the rest of the world in subjugating other governments
that refuse to toe the American line. It will use falsified "intelligence"
reports to buttress its flimsy cases, intimidate other countries into submission,
and use force wherever, whenever and against whomever it sees fit.
Fans of such ludicrous notions argue that the world's sole remaining superpower
has every right to protect itself from its enemies. They are correct in the
strictest sense, but this is not about self-defense: It is about counterproductive
aggression. Washington's strategy can only result in the replacing of one unfriendly
regime, or two, or three, with dozens more -- not to mention the non-state actors
who will be motivated to conduct more of the asymmetrical warfare that America
is so ill-equipped to combat.
Likewise, supporters of the Bush Doctrine argue that the post-Cold War world requires a "policeman" to maintain balance, and that America's bona fides as a democracy entitle it to the benefit of the doubt. There is no question that the world is better off with the United States as its most powerful country than would have been the case if the Soviet Union had prevailed in the Cold War. That is a far cry, though, from accepting the desirability of a "new world order" in which America, democratic or not, goes around grinding other nations into the dust with diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and outright invasion.
The favorite card of dedicated Bush supporters is that those who criticize Washington's strategy are "anti-American." Please. While there is such a thing as knee-jerk anti-Americanism and its adherents are no doubt against current U.S. policy, that is not the same as saying that any and all opposition to the Bush administration can be written off as the product of biased minds bent on undermining the security of the United States. On the contrary, many of the most important arguments against the war in Iraq and against the Bush Doctrine in general are predicated on an earnest desire to shield America and Americans from the inevitable results of that misguided venture and the philosophy that inspired it.
In short, the "anti-American" charge is a hiding place for those whose arguments are manifestly not supported by the facts. Far from being able to hunt, that dog won't even get off the porch: It barks a lot, but suffers from undescended testicles.