Is Bush Misdiagnosing the Malady?
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
If
a doctor, even a God-fearing, Bible-believing evangelical Christian,
misdiagnoses a mortal malady, there is a probability the medicine
he prescribes will do no good and the surgery he proposes may worsen
the patient's condition.
Rereading
the president's Inaugural and State of the Union, this seems an
apt metaphor for U.S. war policy.
In
his Inaugural, President Bush described Sept. 11 as "a day of fire
... when freedom came under attack." But was it really freedom that
was under attack on 9-11? Was bin Laden really saying, "Give up
your freedom!"? Or was he saying, "Get out of our world!"?
If
Al Qaeda was attacking our freedom, which of the freedoms in the
Bill of Rights does Bush believe bin Laden wishes to abolish?
No.
Al Qaeda was no more attacking our "freedom" when it drove those
planes into the World Trade Center than were Iroquois, Sioux and
Apache attacking our freedom when they massacred settlers on the
frontier. Like Islamists, the Indians saw us as defiling their sacred
soil, dispossessing them, imposing a hated hegemony. They cared
not about our Constitution they wanted us off their land.
If
we were truly being attacked for our beliefs, and not our behavior,
the war would have no end. Yet, all the other guerrilla and terror
wars against Western powers there have ended. How?
When
the British left Palestine, Irgun terror ended. When the French
left Algeria, FLN terror ended. When Israel left Lebanon, Hezbollah
terror largely ended. These countries chose to resolve their terror
problem by giving up their occupations and letting go. Their perceived
imperial presence had been the cause of the terror war, and when
they departed and went home, the wars faded away.
The
president says we must fight them over there, so we do not have
to fight them over here. But, before we invaded Iraq, not one American
had been killed by an Iraqi in a dozen years. Since we invaded,
1,500 Americans have died and the number of insurgents has multiplied
from 5,000 to 20,000. By Don Rumsfeld's own metric, our intervention
is creating more terrorists than we are killing. We are fighting
a guerrilla army that our own invasion called into being.
Do
our Saudi friends whose necks are now on the line agree with us
that terrorists attack America because of our democratic principles?
Or do they believe Al Qaeda, when it says it is attacking us because
of our Middle East policies and presence? It would appear to be
the latter. For Riyadh has lately asked us to remove our planes
from Prince Sultan Air Base and our troops from Saudi soil.
Even
the Saudis believe they are safer without the provocative presence
of U.S. troops?
Americans
have often fought wars over lands we coveted or deemed to be ours:
the French and Indian War, Jackson's invasion of Florida, the war
of Texas independence, the Mexican-American War. Yet, never has
an enemy attacked us because we were free. Who told the president
this was what 9-11 was all about?
Consider
the Bush panacea for peace: democracy, rule by the people and by
governments that reflect the popular will.
But
what makes Bush believe this would advance peace or U.S. vital interests?
Does the Arab street share our love for Israel or Bush's admiration
for Sharon as a "man of peace"? Do Arab masses revere Bush, or bin
Laden?
When
free elections were held in Algeria, the people voted for an Islamic
republic. In Gaza, they just voted 70 percent for Hamas. Moderate
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed Arafat, but only because Marwan
Barghouti, now serving a life sentence in Israel, declined to run.
In Iraq, the Shia voted as an ayatollah told them to vote, so they
could take over the country from the Sunni.
Democracy
is America's panacea. But if the abdication of the kings, sheiks,
sultans and autocrats in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman
and the Gulf states would be good for America, why is the fall of
these royal houses and of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt also sought by
bin Laden and the Muslim Brotherhood? What assurances are there,
in the history of the region, that when the kings depart, democrats
will arise?
President
Bush's advisers were 100 percent wrong about what would happen in
Iraq, but perhaps they are right now. If not, however, he and we
may discover that the alternative to autocracy is not democracy,
but Islamic fundamentalism or anarchy, and Bush may find himself
with the epitaph penned a century ago by an old imperialist who
knew the region well:
"A
fool lies here/Who tried to hustle the East."
February
9, 2005
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide,
is editor of The American
Conservative and the author of eight books, including A
Republic Not An Empire and the upcoming Where
the Right Went Wrong.
Copyright
© 2005 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|