|
Somewhere, on Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Bush’s desk sits a
contingency plan. Thus far, we have only heard of the other plan, the
optimistic vision, the manifestation of all of our finest intentions. That
plan, the primary plan, assumes that the Iraqi people will have been
willing to make the tremendous sacrifices we are humbly forcing upon them
in order to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein. It assumes, as Paul
Wolfowitz recently told the BBC, that when Saddam Hussein’s regime is
finally and definitively out of power, there will be a universal sigh of
relief and expression of joy amongst the Iraqi people. Or, if not
universal, close enough that objections will be marginalized into quiet
obscurity. In this narrative, a grateful people will come together and
seize democracy under the loving guidance of the US, and within a few
years the US will depart, impervious to those who sought to criticize
it’s motives.
Now a great deal of debate might be had about the exact probability of
this result, but what is not in doubt is that this scenario is, to some
degree, in doubt. Both Thomas Friedman, a general supporter of the ideals
behind this war, and Robert Novak, an arch-conservative, have
characterized this as one of the highest-stakes gambles in history. The
debate about odds shifts with every passing hour of CNN coverage, as
reflected in the glorified book-keeping of the stock market, but no matter
what one’s personal assessment, one must acknowledge that this
administration can by no means be counting on the realization of their
glorious predictions. Therefore, there is a contingency plan.
The fact that America has been kept in the dark about this contingency
plan is important enough in and of itself. The fact that the media has
done absolutely nothing to force it in to public view is perhaps equally
important. But the real danger lies deeper. In the event that all does not
go well, if suicide bombing continue after the war, if the troops keeping
the peace find themselves in consistent danger from Iraqi or Al Qaeda
attacks, if, in essence, the occupation doesn’t take, how will
America respond? We will be faced with two basic options, the same two
that Israel has lived with for so many years: 1) Pack up and leave, or 2)
Crack down. It is probably fair to say that Bush will not give up and
remove the troops any time soon, since doing so would be an implied
admission of defeat, and would seal the perception that the war was a
failure. And so the only option remaining will be to crack down, and as
Israel has learned, this strategy solves nothing. Military oppression will
only bring more resistance, which will in turn leave no alternative but
further oppression, etc., and before long there will be a cycle of
vindictiveness that can only be broken by a swallowing of pride so
enormous that it is nearly impossible to imagine. The warning signs of
this cycle are already emerging. In light of ambushes and suicide attacks,
the US military has already killed a truckload of innocent women and
children because they would not heed their nervous calls to stop on
command. The Marines have begun to force house-to-house searches in
conflicted areas, causing mistrust amongst the Iraqis at a time when it
can least be afforded. The administration has not given the slightest hint
of how it will avoid this cycle of violence, and while our ignorance of
this possibility is frightening, there is still something else that is
even more so.
Anyone who follows this debate carefully will be astounded at how much
they did not understand when they take a close look at the Project for a
New American Century and look into the history of the neoconservative
ideology which PNAC articulates. It’s membership has included Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Jeb Bush, and a glance at it’s Statement
of Principles (or even a second look at the think tank’s name) will be
enough to evoke images of a grand empire. It is a school of thought that
snubs multilateral concessions to less powerful nations and institutions
in favor of a world dictated by sheer power politics. It imagines an
uninhibited "unipolar" world in which America uses its
overwhelming military and economic power to reshape the world in
America’s image and interests. The campaign against Iraq is a brainchild
of this school of thought which has it’s roots in the Kissinger era, and
has been carefully fostered by Wolfowitz and the other members of the
administration ever since. The idea is that if America can secure long
term oil interests in the Middle East, and a military stronghold from
which to dominate the region, America’s reign as lone superpower will be
secure against such up-and-comers as the EU and China. One can only
imagine the awesome power America could wield if after the years of
conflict which might come in the Middle East, the US controlled the oil
resources of Saudi Arabia.
The goals of PNAC are the true objectives of this war, and the
frightening thing to realize is that only the worst possible scenario of
those I have laid out above will secure those objectives. If the US
successfully democratizes Iraq and leaves in two years, with no real
influence over Iraqi decisions about their oil, or whether or not to allow
American troops to stay, the real objectives of this war will have been
lost. On the other hand, if the contingency plan goes into effect, there
will be ample excuse to stay for years on end, in all likelihood staging
attacks against neighbors such as Syria and Iran using Iraq as a perfect
base of operations. If PNAC has it’s way, the "bad apples" of
Iraq will take the blame in the American propaganda campaign, and the
public will continue to support the occupation, just as Israelis have, out
of pride.
And so we must very seriously ask ourselves the question: which is the
contingency plan, and which is the primary one?
The Moment of Truth
And yet, for all the neoconservatives have accomplished from their
agenda, they have not quite gotten over the hump. There is one fight yet
to be fought, and it will be the biggest test of whether America can be
duped into following them into empire. The administration has stated that
America will retain control of Iraq, and will not hand it over to the UN.
This is an utterly nonsensical position considering their stated goals,
but it is also the position on which the entire success of real objectives
hinges. Having "disarmed" Iraq (by way of forcing Saddam to use
or give away all of his weapons), and having freed the Iraqi people, there
is absolutely no coherent argument not to give authority over to the UN. A
government constructed by the UN would be infinitely more legitimate, and
therefore infinitely more capable of success than one constructed by the
US. There will undoubtedly be a very real cost in American lives for this
decision, whether it is from within Iraq, on American interests abroad, or
in the "homeland". The administration will attempt to utilize
the perception they created that the UN is nothing but a lot of
obstructers, and will argue that having made the sacrifice, we deserve to
have the greatest say in the future of Iraq. Given the success of their
propaganda campaign so far, this might be an easy sell, except that the
cards are stacked much more heavily against the administration this time.
For one, the threat of American empire was only inches beneath the
surface during the UN talks. When it becomes clear that America really has
no intention of ceding power to the UN, that fear will erupt in a wave of
anti-Americanism the likes of which we have not yet dreamed. World leaders
will have to make an extremely difficult decision of whether to latch on
to the American juggernaut and become rich, or fight it, in what could be
a futile effort, and suffer the consequences of strained ties with the
world’s biggest consumer. If they unite against Bush, however, it will
likely be a pressure so powerful that Blair will succumb, and will have to
distance himself from Bush to save his job. Germany, France, and Russia
have already made clear that they expect the UN to be given authority.
Within America, there are already rumors of serious friction between
the Pentagon and the State Department on the topic, and if Colin Powell
has even half the integrity he once appeared to have, the possibility of
him stepping down becomes very real. And perhaps most formidably,
Democrats may well leap at the chance to redeem themselves, particularly
since there was nothing in the resolution they passed about occupation,
and therefore they will finally be immune from the charge of hypocrisy.
Senator Biden, for example, who had swung behind the war by the time it
began, has already taken a strong stance against the President on
occupation. Any combination of these forces will represent the
administration’s greatest challenge to date, and they will be armed with
their flimsiest argument of the campaign.
If the administration manages to rebuff all of these voices, the
imperial trajectory may be sealed. We will stay in Iraq, and with the
Middle East in chaos around us, we will probably find a much better excuse
for the next war than we did for the one in Iraq. America will learn to
despise the rest of the world, and the rest of the world’s criticisms
will lose all effect. Empire will begin. But the administration is forced
to give in, there will be no military stronghold from which to launch
further wars in the Middle East, there will be no long-term oil
guarantees, and the New American Century will be a dead fantasy. Expect a
fierce fight. |
