The cable television Arts and Entertainment Network (known as A&E) recently presented a four-hour film on Napoleon, focusing on his rise to power in France and his subsequent fall. The film, which has gotten a mixed reception from viewers and which may not have been historically accurate in all its details, did drive home several important points, notably regarding what power does to an individual and the fact that empires collapse. In Napoleon's case, it appears to have been the effect of power on his ego and his determination to dominate France and the rest of Europe and create an empire. And the film depicted how a number of military powers eventually banded together to thwart Napoleon's and Frances's imperial dreams.
George Bush – who appears to have acquired similar ego problems since taking office, seems absolutely certain that what he is doing is right in the conducting the war on Iraq and what he broadly describes as the war on terror. But he and his neo-con advisers (aka the Axis of Deceit) should reconsider U.S. policy towards Iraq and the Middle East now that they have gotten an easy initial military victory over Saddam Hussein. A policy of continued war – attacking other countries that may have provided aid to Iraq and that might be sheltering some of Iraq's former regime members – could boomerang by creating a hard and lasting alliance against the U.S. Thus, George Bush and Company would be wise to heed the historic lessons provided by that tumultuous Napoleonic period of European history lest they set America up for a big fall.
How Many Wars Will the U.S. Government Start?
There are some general similarities between the position Napoleon was in as he tried to expand the French empire and the position of George Bush and his Axis of Deceit (his neo-con advisers both within and outside the U.S. government).
While George Bush is no Napoleon – having only been in the Air National Guard and never having directly commanded troops in war, he has been taking advice from people who seem to have Napoleonic visions of worldwide U.S. empire, despite the fact that most of them have never been in battle.
George Bush seems driven by a vision and possibly by his ego to: 1) secure U.S. dominance over the Middle East oil fields and use that as a lever of power; 2) force other countries into setting up democratic governments in a fit of Wilsonian idealism – that is, spreading democracy around the world in a sort of Pax Americana; and, 3) protect Israel from attacks by its Arab neighbors. Whatever explanation is accurate, the bottom line is the same: America wants to run a world empire by attacking other countries, actions that the U.S. constitution does not permit. While the reasons for Bush's imperial wars may differ, the actions would be similar to what Napoleon did: keep attacking countries until none challenged the U.S. government.
And this Axis of Deceit has convinced George Bush that this is the right thing to do. Like Napoleon, George Bush seems quite certain that what he is doing is correct and he will not change his mind. In a policy based upon deceit and treachery, the Axis of Deceit has used the media to bamboozle the American public into thinking that the war on Iraq, and any subsequent wars, are only designed to stop terrorist attacks against the United States. They have justified the notion that the U.S. is allowed to attack, preemptively, other countries that now do or might someday harbor hostile thoughts towards it.
With the apparent victory over Iraq, the Axis of Deceit is now preparing the U.S. public for launching attacks on other countries, most notably Syria. The U.S. has accused Syria of providing equipment and guerilla fighters to attack U.S. troops in Iraq. When asked on Sunday, April 13th's "Meet the Press," if senior Saddam aides had fled to Syria, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "Oh, there's no question but that they did. Absolutely. … Some left and went to Syria and stayed, and some have left Iraq, gone to Syria and transited to other countries. Rumsfeld refused to comment on whether Syria gave asylum to two Iraqi scientists, known as "Dr. Germ" and "Mrs. Anthrax." There are other reports that the Syrians might be hiding some of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Leaked CIA reports (you do not hear Administration complaints of illegal leaks, do you?) also claim that Syria might be trying to build its own weapons of mass destruction, including missiles and nuclear weapons.
In addition, these intelligence reports claim that some of Saddam's people may only be using Syria as a transit point to enter France! And, surprise of surprises, George Bush's good buddy, Russian President Vladimir Putin (remember, George looked into Vlad's KGB soul and liked what he saw), has been providing intelligence to the Iraqis, reportedly including a list of "hit men" who could be tapped for assassination jobs against the U.S. and other Western countries.
George Bush has begun to parrot the same line, giving credence to U.S. pressure that is being put on the Syrian government. How long before this pressure translates into an attack on Syria? If the U.S. is really in control of Iraq, then what is the point of attacking Syria, other than appeasing the Axis of Deceit in its support of U.S. protection for Israel?
Bush has even gone so far as to suggest that the war on Iraq has gotten North Korea to change its tune and make concessions to start talks on controlling its nuclear program. Are we to scratch Pyongyang from the Axis of Evil?
The U.S. government seems to have made a lot of new potential enemies with our war on Iraq, such as Syria, France, and Russia. Are we going to attack all of them if they do not come around to our way of thinking on the Middle East? Is that the goal of the Axis of Deceit and George Bush?
What about finishing up our involvement in Afghanistan? Notice how that nation-building quagmire has temporarily disappeared from the U.S. media's radar screen. Our involvement there is not finished by any stretch of the imagination, with the significant possibility of al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping for counter-attacks there. If the U.S. angers enough Muslims by its wars, especially those in Pakistan, then any overthrow of the current pro-U.S. and nuclear weapon equipped Pakistani regime would lead to real trouble. Will the U.S. have to start a war against Pakistan, or does the Axis of Deceit think they can con India into launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against that country?
The Costs of Empire
From the looks of it, Bush and Company may be getting the U.S. into a position somewhat similar to that which Napoleon got France into during his rule, that is, many other countries are angered at it and willing to work behind the scenes, and openly if necessary, to thwart it's foreign policies and its wars. While the U.S. may currently have military superiority over most countries, it cannot pick fights with everyone that opposes it. If the U.S. angers many countries as badly as Napoleon angered the European monarchs of his day, then these other countries may decide to raise their defense spending and create military alliances among themselves in order to thwart further U.S. imperial actions.
If that happens and the U.S. public tells the Axis of Deceit to take a hike because of the costs in lives and money, what will they say? Probably that America did not spend enough on defense and that it did not have the courage to impose "a benign Pax Americana" on the rest of the planet. But then the Axis of Deceit never seems to care about the costs of building and maintaining the empire of their dreams since the public at large gets to foot the bill!
The A&E Network may have done a favor to the U.S. public by helping to sponsor and show the four-hour movie on Napoleon. And it will have been a really big favor if enough of the public demands, and gets, a termination of the disastrous imperial wars being conducted by George Bush and his Axis of Deceit.
April 16, 2003
Jim Grichar (aka Exx-Gman) [send him mail], formerly an economist with the federal government, writes to “un-spin” the federal government’s attempt to con the public.
