|
|
 |
 |
|
 | | The Cost of US Foreign Policy |
|
|
| By Jeffrey Silverman |
|
President George W. Bush is proud of his accomplishments in bringing the force of the United States to bear in the military defeat of Iraq. But many questions are left unanswered as to the motivation of the war in the first place and which country will be next in the cross hairs of US foreign policy. History may not be as kind as the closely controlled media has been in reviewing the events leading up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It is clear from the sound bytes embedded in the well crafted CNN reports and rehearsed statements by smooth talking "doctors of spin" that the carefully orchestrated war of liberation went according to plan. Nevertheless, many conclude that the facts on the ground were not as such and the entire ordeal was nothing short of a flimsy disguise for the catch-all term "imperialism". Andrew Tait, a political analyst, wrote in the early days of the US victory: "The US invasion of Iraq was an intensively political endeavor from the start, shaking the foundations of the US-European alliance, sparking unprecedented protests throughout the world, and even dividing the US establishment."
George W. Bush is not the first Republican President to have had ambitious aims and to have devised a truly global role for the United States and his own self-image. One only needs to look at the historic record of Teddy Roosevelt, one of the youngest and most effervescent of America's Chief Executives. Comparatively, instead of opening doors for the United States, Bush is proving more adept at violating international law and slamming doors in the face of long-term foreign policy interests. The aftermath of September 11 may be closer in retrospect to the events of the battleship Maine that was blown up by US Intelligence Services in Havana harbor in 1898, justifying a war with Spain and the subsequent annexation of Philippines and Cuba.
There is much to consider in adding up the human cost of war in human suffering, lives destroyed and long-term impacts. The harshest commentary will be the evaluation of the real reasons for the war in the first place. Informed observers saw the grounds for war as based on no more than lies of convenience from the very start. Having said this, with a degree of soul searching, there are many questions unanswered. The question as to which country is next in line as a target for attack is not only raising concerns in Arab countries, but is also being discussed by political and economic analysts.
Next Targets
Defense analysts suspect that Syria or Iran may be the next targets in remaking regional maps and deciding the real ownership of the majority of the world's oil resources. A recent Agence France-Presse press release suggests that "Washington has drawn up a plan for military action against Iran, which it accuses of supporting terrorism and having a secret nuclear weapons program". This sounds uncannily like pronouncements we heard before on Iraq.
Considering these various strands of history and commentary, with its mixture of power politics, it seems those countries that do not unconditionally support US policies are left out in the cold.
The chronicle of freeing Iraq is the tale of how a modern war is perverted and just how easily officials and journalists with different agendas accept contradictory, self-serving versions of what is actually happening and what the long-term consequences are. And now the facts are beginning to surface that there may not be a the proverbial smoking gun in terms of weapons of mass destruction. This is reminiscent of the very hilarious but realistic film "Wag the Dog," in which government officials attempt to demonstrate to the world that the President is not a wimp and is full in control of the situation by waging an imaginary war.
Meanwhile, George Bush Jr. is still smarting over the beating he took from the French and "Old Europe" during the Iraq War. He also knows only too well that Turkey can never be a trusted supporter. Turkey has become an aspiring regional power player that is too willing to give in to democratic processes at home and public opinion. Nor can Bush understand why the people of Iraq failed to rally around being freed but instead saw the US and its coalition allies as invaders. To add injury upon insult, he cannot balance in his mind why everyone would not get behind American idealism, corporate interest and good will against French realism and the flip side of pragmatic diplomacy. Even the Germans have a collective memory of the horrors of war and fascism and what happens when the power of one individual runs unopposed.
Narrowly Defined Interests
Moreover, how dare Turkey be influenced by its own narrowly defined interests and give in so readily to domestic opinion? This may be an exaggerated implication, but we should remember that the world is "very simple" according to the Bush Doctrine, and George Jr. will never been remembered as the scholar-diplomat of his time. In short, the Bush Doctrine is: "Either you are with us or against us [there is no riding the fence], and the US retains the right to act preemptively and unilaterally."
The terrible events of September 11 allowed the US to gain unprecedented power not enjoyed since the time of the American Civil War, when a fledgling Abraham Lincoln suspended civil rights for American citizens. History repeats itself, even in terms of human rights violations. Numerous press and human rights reports confirm that the US Government and their coalition often use torture as a method of interrogation. In cases where US personnel are unable to extract the sought-after results, the suspects are sent to 'friendly' countries that are notorious for human rights violations and cruel methods of torture. History may likely confirm that the greatest casualty of September 11 was in fact the hard-fought American freedom and the country's international reputation and standing.
Easier Said than Done
The reconstruction of Iraq and Baghdad is something that may be easier said than done. The reconstructing contracts were already in the bag to economic and political interests closest to the Bush Administration from the very beginning. One should realize that Bush was never elected by the majority of the American people. What is more, the close race in Florida was made even closer by the authorities setting up road blocks on Election Day in some closely contested voting precincts to discourage minority voters from making it to the polls. If this is any indication of the kind of democracy and freedom that the Bush Administration wants for Iraq, then self-determination may be a long time in the waiting. Freedom for Iraq can be compared to Bush being elected President of the United States - it is the stuff of legends and is nourished by myths and lies. Everything to date regarding the justification for war and the weakening of the United Nations is part of war propaganda and the neat story line the Bush Administration wants to push forward. Regardless of the truth, one should remember that the pages of history are littered with empires that thought they would last forever but fell into decay and dishonor.
Losing the Peace
Meanwhile, it appears that many may be right in the adage "winning the war and losing the peace." Iraqi citizens remember the UN sanctions against Iraq and how key members of the Security Council participated in creating the tyrant in the first place. What goes around comes around: already the United States and coalition forces are bogged down in a no-win situation where they are becoming targets of convenience for anti-American feeling and bullets. The New York Times recently reported a series of attacks in a single week in which six American soldiers were killed and a dozen more wounded. The continued violence underscores the challenge that Bush faces from the Iraqi population and from Iran who seeks to assist Iraqi groups in setting up an Islamic state in the wake of the ousting of Saddam Hussein.
The rising Iraqi hostility portends what the future may have in store for US policy planners and troops on the ground. Iraq is a country like Afghanistan, in that it has never been friendly to occupying forces, and its citizens perceive Americans as insensitive and indifferent to the rich history and culture. This begs a very important question: was it just an unfortunate mistake that Americans stood silently by and watched the looting of the National Museum, while at the same time not a single paper clip disappeared from the Iraqi Oil Ministry? Regardless, the real challenge for the occupation is avoiding the backlash and unintended consequences of US policy in the region. Instead of stabilizing the region, the effect may be just the opposite in bringing together a mixed bag of opposition groups to throw out the "infidels." Many journalists and international security experts are already predicting the worst. Some go as far as labeling the invasion as a complete loss, and they believe it could be the next quagmire for the United States.
Leading up to the ground invasion, every effort was made by intelligence agencies to connect Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to banned weapons and terrorist groups; this was nothing short of pulling the wool over the eyes of the international community. It raises serious questions not only of the integrity of George Bush and his key advisors, but also of the credibility of intelligence gathering services in being able to protect the actual security interests of the United States.
Iraq, like Afghanistan, has never been friendly to occupying troops. Many locals see the replacement of one despot with another, and they do not see Americans as selective in their choice of partners in maintaining peace and order. Americans are also seen as openly collaborative with the cruel police and security forces of the much-hated Baath Party. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration wants to trumpet the assistance that is being provided in rebuilding Iraq, but conveniently fails to mention that for aid to be effective there needs to be a good government. A good government, however, cannot be made by cut-and-paste American policies and visiting experts - it must be a homegrown commodity.
American "Encounters" and Perspectives
Only now is the American media taking the time to look at the real issues of the war in Iraq and the nation's rebuilding. In the American territory of Guam, Agana's Pacific Daily News describes, in its view, the job ahead: "Rebuild Iraq so that people may live without state repression." The newspaper also provides the following historical perspective: "Western perceptions of Iraq as a brittle entity that can be easily torn apart by sectarian divisions need reviewing … Iraq is multi-ethnic and home to adherents of many faiths; Iraq has experienced national unity before. Its nationalist movement brought together Sunni and Shiite, Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Christians and others, to oppose British rule in 1920. Iraq also experienced political community, with political parties, a resonant press and other [institutions] that promoted political participation by the [wider society]."
The Greatest Casualty
Predicting the future in Iraq and the region is almost impossible, but one thing is certain in looking at other regions of the world: "if the guerilla is not losing, then he is winning." This is a lesson that the Americans could take to heart from the on-going battle between Russian forces and Chechen fighters indeed and their own Vietnam. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, writes Andrew Tait, "Massive local resistance would have made the invasion impossible." Nevertheless, one thing is clear in the final commentary - the fall of Saddam Hussein is already causing other authoritarian regimes to shake in their boots. The larger lesson to be learned is that one can be a dictator today, and a friend tomorrow. Even though US foreign policy serves narrowly defined interests it is not very consistent over time.
The greatest casaulty of all is the credibility of US policy in terms of human rights. The invasion of Iraq has demonstrated that the US has little legitimacy in the region. This standing can have far-reaching implications on other regional hotspots, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and any roadmap for lasting peace.
|
|
|
|
|
