Iraq and the Bush Doctrine
James Madison University
October 28, 2002
(This lecture was given as part of a public panel discussion entitled "Should We Invade Iraq?" which included 4 faculty discussing different perspectives on the issue)
I would like to discuss part of the context in which the decision to invade Iraq is being made. Specifically, I will argue that initiating war with Iraq fits in quite well with the Bush administration's new National Security Strategy, which was sent to Congress just about a month ago, and may provide a preview of future actions. In particular, this strategy lays out an aggressive unilateralism which is embodied in the imminent "regime change".
This strategy claims that there is only one way to organize a society, and that the US has the right to ensure that all countries and peoples conform to this vision with whatever means it sees fit. It further states that the US will maintain absolute military superiority over all other countries or possible coalitions of countries. It asserts the right of the US to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants, however it wants. None of this is surprising given the hawkish, Cold Warrior credentials of the major national security players in the Administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.
It labels all who do not think and act exactly like us as potential enemies. In this sense it is the ultimate expression of "anti-worldism." The Bush Doctrine assigns enemy or potential enemy status to almost every country in the world (Europe, and especially Tony Blair, being the main exception, except, perhaps, Germany at the moment...). It continues the Manichean Cold War mantra-you are either with us or against us. Whereas people talk about "anti-Americanism" and ask "why do they hate us so much?", after reading this document, I was compelled to ask, "why do we hate them so much?"
The cornerstone of the Bush Doctrine is preemption, or what might more properly be called offensive prevention. Essentially, the US will take whatever action it deems necessary, including military action, to ensure that no country ever becomes a potential threat. That is, whereas preemption involves responding to an imminent attack, prevention means taking action when there might be a possible threat at some indeterminate time in the future. Is Iraq about to attack the US in the next week, month, or year? Highly unlikely, and unproven by the Administration in any case. Might it do so sometime in the future? Again, highly unlikely. In fact, the CIA has recently stated that Saddam Hussein would be much more likely to take some sort of action against the US in response to a US attack. Of course, such "preemption" is not for all countries-just the US. Certainly this principle does not apply to Iraq, which does, in fact, face an obvious, imminent threat from the US. The problem is that this strategy is not based on any real principles, unless one calls being the meta- mega- hyper- superpower a principle.
Further, it states that "The enemy is terrorism." This statement is nonsensical. When talking about international relations, we can talk about issues, we can talk about actors, and we can talk about the means actors use to address those issues. Terrorism is a means that certain actors use to achieve a certain goal. It is not an actor. It does not have agency. It can not be an enemy. Yet, anthropomorphizing terrorism allows us to ignore the multiple facets, sources and causes of terrorism. Does a suicide bomber blow himself up in Jerusalem because of the gross oppression being perpetrated against his people by the occupying power of Israel? No-he does it simply because he is a "terrorist," and therefore not worthy of consideration, nor is his cause. This also allows us to ignore the terrorism being perpetrated by others around the world, including allies of the US.
If we were to treat this as a real principle, then we would have to ask: if a country can go anywhere and do anything in the name of fighting terrorism, does this mean that Great Britain, for example, could strike Boston and New York to root out the members of the IRA taking refuge there? Could the victims of the Contras have engaged in a little "regime change" while the Reagan Administration was funding this group which used terrorism? And what about Colombia? Most of the terrorism is committed by the right-wing paramilitaries with connections to the armed forces, while the US gives money to the government to fight the left-wing rebels and the "war on drugs." Perhaps the tens of thousands of people displaced as a result of the "war on drugs" might like a little regime change of their own.
What about multilateralism? According to the Bush Doctrine, of course the US believes in multilateralism, as long as everybody else in the world agrees with the US and allows it to do whatever it wants to. The rule of law? Of course we believe in international law, as long as it doesn't bind us in anyway. Kyoto Protocol? International Criminal Court? ABM Treaty? Landmine Convention? Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? These are all bad treaties which might harm the national security of the US. As would, apparently, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Somalia and the US are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified this treaty, which is designed to protect some of the most vulnerable individuals.
And what about the United Nations? Of course we support the United Nations, except of course when we don't... If the UN does not do what we want it to, we will be free to do whatever we want to do, even if it violates the UN Charter (which the US was instrumental in creating). Oh, and by the way, we might also stop paying our dues, pull out of UN agencies, and prevent vital peacekeeping missions from being renewed unless everybody follows our rules. Further, the Administration has explicitly said that it will feel free to attack Iraq, regardless of whether it gets UN approval or not. This is consistent with the Bush Doctrine of aggressive unilateralism, and highlights the cynical use of the UN for its own purposes.
The doctrine goes on to say: "We will champion the cause of human dignity and oppose those who resist it." "Our principles will guide our government's decisions about international cooperation, the character of our foreign assistance, and the allocation of resources." If this is the case, we must ask if we are going to drop our support for our good friend and dictator Karimov in Uzbekistan. Well, he is an ally in the fight against terrorism. Are we going to get on Russia's case about its actions in Chechnya? No. How about Pakistan, which is currently ruled by a military dictator who took power in a coup and which, it turns out, gave nuclear technology to another member of the Axis of Evil? And what about the Chinese oppression of the Uighers or Tibetans or many other minority groups? And what about Saudi Arabia, one of the biggest funders of Anti-Americanism and the brutal oppressor of half of its population? Well, they do have oil after all. And, of course, there is Israel, which has occupied and brutalized the Palestinians for decades. Well, they are a democracy and our best friend in the region. Besides, its OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons. It's not hard to see where the charges of US hypocrisy come from.
A major goal of the Bush Doctrine is to "Enhance energy security." This gets to the crux of the matter. The US is addicted to oil. It is 4.5% of the world's population and consumes 42% of the world's oil. People in the US use 6 times as much energy per capita as do those in the developing world. Gaining access to (that is, controlling) oil is in the US national interest, so of course we should feel free to use military force to ensure the oil flows-and cheaply, too. US consumers have access to some of the cheapest gas in the world. If the actual cost of the gas, including the share of the military budget dedicated to "protecting" US "interests" in the oil producing Middle East, were to make it to the pump, people would be dumping their massive SUVs left and right for scooters and Segways. Further, we musn't forget the Administration's ties to the oil industry. Haliburton, which Dick Cheney was CEO of before he became vice president, sold millions of dollars worth of equipment to Iraq during the late 1990s. Obviously Iraq was not "evil" then. So, when exactly did Iraq become "evil"?
This so-called "National Security Strategy of the United States" is nothing more than a call for global, absolute, imperial supremacy. In the coming year, the US will spend approximately the same amount on its military as every other country in the world combined. And Bush wants to do even more. Will more weapons really make us more secure?
The attempt by Reagan to establish military superiority bankrupted this country-during the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush Sr. years, the US debt increased by $3 trillion. Last year, President Bush wiped out the budget surplus and started us down the road again toward increasing debt in a matter of months. The Administration's plans to extend Pax Americana will make all of us less secure as it engenders more frustration and hatred among the other 95.5% of the world's population. It will make further terrorist actions against the US more likely, not less likely. It will increase global tensions. During the campaign, George Bush said that the US should act in a more humble manner. His new strategy is the exact opposite of this. As a result of his Administration's aggressive unilateralism, most of the global goodwill the US had after Setptember 11 has been destroyed. Engaging in "regime change"-and we should be clear about what this euphimism actually means-a violent, bloody invasion of a sovereign country and overthrow of a national leader, which will result in many deaths, including many civilian casualties, as well as the indefinite military occupation of this country-will further erode global support for the US. It will engender increased hostility toward the US and make it that much easier for the Osama bin Ladens of the world to recruit future terrorists.
Finally, I would like to close with the words of Paul Wellstone. In the recent Senate debate authorizing an attack on Iraq, he said that attacking Iraq would demonstrate the US' power; practicing restraint would demonstrate the US' strength. With the aggressive unilateralism found in the Bush Doctrine, the US is losing credibility and moral authority worldwide. Attacking Iraq would accelerate this process. Can this really be good for the US?