|
The Battle for Geopolitical Domination
The impending American led invasion of Iraq has always been about more than just disarmament. "New Europe’s" opposition towards war has always been about more than just a disagreement with America regarding the best way to approach Middle Eastern foreign policy. The Islamic opposition to war, especially in the extremist camps, has always been more than a simple desire to stand with an Arab neighbor against Western aggression. All the players in this international drama have more at stake than they admit. The reasons all parties involved support or oppose war spans far beyond what their respective representatives publicly admit. Yes, the battle over Iraq is a debate of conflicting philosophies – realpolitik reactionaries vs. neoconservative idealists, the War Party vs. the Peace Party, etc. But the behind the scenes planning, maneuvering, diplomatic wrangling and threats, and military buildup reveal something much more: This coming war is the first test of each party to try and establish geopolitical control over the Middle East and perhaps beyond in post-Cold War era. Every side in this controversy is operating entirely off of self-interest – or what their leaders have deemed their self-interest. The support for war is not, and never has been about security concerns. The opposition to war is about more than sympathy with Saddam. Each side is acting on a complex mix of political and economic motives designed to either solidify their status as a "global superpower" or become or maintain status as a player in global affairs. When the Soviet Union crumbled in 1989, and was laid to rest in 1991, the United States was faced with a dilemma. While it was a victory for US foreign policy strategists, suddenly our strategic approach to global affairs needed to be altered. Debates raged: Should the US decrease military spending? Should the US pull its troops from around the globe and enact a more traditional foreign policy? What role did the West have to play in the former Soviet bloc? What potential threats needed to be guarded against? No clear answer was ever given. While Washington slightly decreased military spending, there was no end to the military adventures. The first President Bush ordered an invasion of Panama to capture corrupt drug runner Manuel Noriega, a largely forgotten war by the American public. In 1990, he turned his attention to Iraq. An ally of America during its war with Iran, Iraq now posed a threat to American oil interests in the Middle East. Troops were deployed for Operation Desert Shield, and in 1991 the war officially began with Desert Storm. The war was billed as an altruistic crusade to liberate Kuwait from oppression by a brutal dictator. In reality, the concern was to protect Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields (for some brief background on the original Gulf War and the duplicity of the US government, see my August column titled "Weapons of Mass Deception"). Many complained that the US did not "finish the job" by occupying Baghdad and deposing Saddam Hussein. The administration maintained that their goal and purpose was never to occupy Iraq. They were telling the truth. Today’s Bush administration has a much more aggressive vision, which we will get to later. Bush concluded his term by engaging US troops in Somalia, and left his successor to deal with that crisis. President Clinton’s entrance to office brought with it an almost unprecedented misuse of US troops. With no coherent vision of foreign policy on the table, the Clinton administration used the US military to enter into countless excursions where no direct US interests appeared at stake. He exited Somalia, but engaged troops into Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sudan and Afghanistan (as embarrassing leaks surfaced about the Lewinsky case), and launched Operation Desert Fox in Iraq in late 1998 (as he was about to be impeached). The efforts were largely billed as "humanitarian" wars and an interesting development occurred with the previously anti-war left largely supporting the endeavors. Many conservatives, however, opposed the initiatives and called for a more humble foreign policy. This led to optimism amongst paleo-libertarians and conservatives who still adhered to the philosophy of Taft Republicanism on foreign affairs. When the second Bush assumed office, that optimism was proved to be futile. The oft-repeated mantra that September 11th of 2001, "changed everything" may prove to be especially correct in the area of geopolitical and foreign relations. When Bush II became President there remained no clear direction for US foreign policy. Team Bush was determined to change that. Bush’s cabinet and advisors was filled with neoconservative hawks who had long argued for an aggressive US foreign policy that sought – in the words of The Weekly Standard, the neoconservative publication of choice on foreign affairs – "benevolent global hegemony." From Condoleezza Rice, to Donald Rumsfeld, to Paul Wolfowitz, it was clear that the hawks outnumbered the doves in the Bush administration and had control. Before the terrorist atrocities in New York, Bush had signaled his hostility to Iraq and his desire for "regime change." The hawks saw an opening: Iraq was weak. Its military and economy had been destabilized from years of war and sanctions. A toppling of Iraq and the installation of a friendly regime would open up vast economic resources in the Middle East. Plus, it would be the first step in solidifying US influence in the Middle East. It would also set into motion a change of events that could possibly democratize the backward Arab region. What’s best, it could probably be done quickly with minimum US casualties. The argument was largely utilitarian – any loss of US lives and the prospect of widespread destruction and atrocities towards Iraq and civilian casualties would be beneficial for everyone in the end. Then came 9/11. The nation was stunned and outraged, and the West saw Islamic extremism at its sickest. The administration knew it had to satisfy the citizenry’s lust for vengeance and justice and thus launched the war in Afghanistan. While the Taliban was toppled, the country today remains in a state of disunity and disarray while bin Laden has yet to be accounted for and Al-Qaeda remains actively engaged in regrouping. But the administration saw another opportunity: scare the American people into a war with Iraq. The arguments for the current war have largely centered on disarming Saddam of weapons of mass destruction. While the administration gravely warns of the threat of Iraqi WMD’s, no serious-minded person believes that Iraq actually poses a military threat to the United States. Iraq simply does not have the means to strike the United States, and any attempt to arm Islamic terrorists (of which Iraq is no natural ally, despite all the propaganda to the contrary) would result in a unified global effort to bring down the Iraqi regime. But Bush knew the neoconservative utopian goal of democratizing the Middle East, and the economic advantages of occupying Iraq would not convince the nation to go to war, so he took his case to the United Nations and the American people regarding the supposed threat to world peace that Iraq posed. There’s no questioning that Iraq has violated UN resolutions (as has Israel) and probably has some weapons we would now classify as WMD’s. The question remains whether or not Iraq can threaten her neighbors or the United States. The bulk of international opinion says no. As a result, Bush has been tied down in endless debate with global bureaucrats in the UN regarding getting permission for America to launch an attack into Iraq. The result is each side trying to get their piece of the pie. The Bush administration hopes to launch the war to chase its neoconservative vision of democratizing the Middle East and benefiting handsomely from the economic resources we could take from the region. The "Old Europe" and Russian coalition against war has much at stake in keeping the Iraqi regime propped up. Both France and Russia have done much past business with Iraq and see Saddam Hussein as a safer business partner than a puppet government of the US. Russia in particular is owed millions of dollars by the Iraqi regime from past debts. Plus, most importantly, these nations are using the international controversy to try and gain influence on a global stage. This can not be underestimated when examining France’s vocal opposition to the war. Aside from their economic concerns, France craves being a world player once again. The French have long been a non-player in global affairs. They arguably do not deserve veto power on the UN Security Council and their global influence since the 50’s has diminished rapidly. Russia, France and "Old Europe" in general fear the United States further extending its influence and desire to extend their own. Thus, this is more than just a battle between conflicting opinions regarding the necessity of war – this is just as much a battle against the United States’ efforts to extend its influence in the world so that these opposing nations can establish theirs. On the Islamic front, a US led war into Iraq is just what the bin Laden camp craves. Iraq is hardly in the camp of terrorist extremists. Iraq is widely viewed by Muslim militants to be a nation of apostates. Iraq is also the only Arab nation in the Middle East that permits Christianity. But bin Laden and company know that any US led assault into Iraq will further fan the flames of Muslim hatred towards the West. So, both Iraq and Al-Qaeda are trying to capitalize on their new relationship of convenience. For people who paid attention, the last purported bin Laden tape that Al-Jazerra aired quoted the terrorist mastermind as calling Saddam a "socialist" and his government "apostate," yet he urged the entire Muslim world to rally around Iraq anyway to take out a bigger enemy – the US and Israel. The fall of the Soviet Union paved the way for a bigger and potentially more drawn-out and dangerous conflict for the new millennium – the battle of East vs. West. Arab extremists detest the West and all it stands for. They are determined to see the US and Western empire fall. They are patient. They will wait as long as they have to see victory. Countless Western military exercises are only fanning the flames of Arab resentment and are just what the Al-Qaeda crowd wants. Another advantage of the Muslim East is the fact that their birth rates and populations are skyrocketing, while Western birth rates and populations are sinking like a rock. If these population and foreign policy trends continue, the West could find itself in very big trouble as this century progresses, and the Arab world can plausibly achieve their desired goals of conquest. What faction will be victorious? The US-"New Europe"-Israeli faction, the "Old Europe"-Russia-China faction, or the radical Islamic faction? Only time will tell, but it is clear that the American position is full of risks. The current drive for domination in the Iraqi region runs the risk of further jeopardizing the lackluster US economy with massive deficits and government spending. It is also playing into the hands of Muslim extremists who want to pick a fight with the West. There is also no guarantee that bloody urban fighting will not take place in Baghdad. Not to mention the massive amounts of destruction and casualties of Iraqi’s that will likely take place in any invasion. Such a war will be unprecedented in US foreign policy – we are witnessing the birth of the doctrine of pre-emption, which has hid its imperialistic ambitions behind the carnage of 9/11. The good news is that the strategic confusion the world faced after the fall of the Soviet Union in its approach to foreign affairs is ending. Each global faction now has a clear vision and a purpose. Gone are the days of Clintonite confusion in regards to foreign policy. Team Bush has a clear vision and a clear purpose, even if it is masked to the American public and the United Nations. Old Europe knows what it has to do to survive (oppose the United States). New Europe knows what it has to do to get a place at the table (support the United States). The Islamic world knows what it wants to do in the area of foreign policy (make war on the United States). The bad news is that this new strategic awareness reeks of injustice and imperialism and runs the risk of a long-term destructive clash of civilizations. As stated in the thesis of this essay, every faction is operating in what it perceives to be its best interests. There is nothing strange about that. It is not expected that France will primarily want what is best for America or that America will want what is primarily best for France. From a moral standpoint, a collective nation is not the moral equivalent of an individual. While it is noble and moral for an individual to engage in self-sacrifice for another, nobody desires to live in a nation that puts the interests of other nations above its own. Such a concept would jeopardize that nation’s own people and thus be immoral and reckless. The question for America must be this: Is our current policy and drive for geopolitical domination in our best interests? Upon careful evaluation, this author and the publication he proudly writes for answers with a resounding no. The dangers posed if the neoconservatives have their way are too great. The governmental power grab associated with this plan is too atrocious. The threat to global stability is too frightening. The solution we offer is a return to the principles of non-aggression and the free-market economy, which seeks war with none and trade and commerce with all. An invasion of these ideals would be far more beneficial to all sides than an invasion with tanks and guns. The neoconservative dream of domination by force must be replaced with a Washingtonian ideal of disengagement from entangling alliances and an avoidance of foreign wars which are none of our business. We must also discard this new and dangerous concept of pre-emptive warfare. Americans are a proud people, but they are also a peace-loving people. America is separated by two vast oceans and is blessed with an abundance of industrious individuals. Across these oceans we should seek to export economic liberty and peace instead of sanctions and warfare. Inside our borders we should seek to strengthen our moral and economic condition instead of plotting dreams of global influence by force. It is not too late to reserve the strategic backwardness and confusion since the end of the Cold War. Let us pray that President Bush somehow returns to his campaign promise of instituting a more humble American foreign policy. Let us pray we can win this war of civilizations and achieve our desired goals through trade, commerce, innovation, ideas, and humility instead of carnage and attempts at global domineering. Sadly, it looks as if there is no stopping the neoconservative march to war. Are those of us on the anti-war Right correct in our assessment of this situation and the dangers that potentially lie ahead? Only time will tell. Let us hope and pray we are wrong. March 15, 2003 Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor in Swartz Creek, Michigan and a Master’s of ministry student at Bethel College. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
|
