By Richard E. Rubenstein*
The failure of the Democratic Party and the mainstream news media to criticize President Bush’s overwrought, alarmingly bellicose State of the Union speech is no less appalling for being predictable. Their vacuous, timid responses remind us once again that democracy and freedom depend ultimately on ideas and the courage to voice them, not just on forms of legality.
Bush makes three points in his speech. (1) The war on Afghanistan was a great victory. (2) The war on global terrorism must be continued and expanded. (3) We will “defeat” the economic recession as well as the terrorists.
For the moment, we can forget point (3), which simply dresses up the Bush Administration’s economic program in military rhetoric, and point (1), which represents the worst sort of tub-thumping propaganda. Afghanistan has been “freed from oppression,” although upwards of 40,000 new refugees have fled their homes to escape the warlords; the war “saved a people from starvation,” although they would not have starved if we had fed them to begin with instead of bombing them; we “rid the world of thousands of terrorists,” although most of those killed by our high-tech weapons were Taliban footsoldiers and civilians; we won a great victory over al Quaeda, although its leaders and “tens of thousands of trained terrorists” are still at large, etc.
The heart of the speech is point (2), which consists of two sub-points. Subpoint (a) calls for a new, aggressively militaristic foreign policy aimed at alleged terrorists in “at least a dozen countries,” promises that if local governments do not act against those the U.S. defines as terrorists, “America will,” and targets three governments as an “axis of evil”: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Subpoint (b) defines certain American values (including private property) as “non-negotiable” and states: “America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world – including the Islamic world….” Together, these declarations mark a definitive end to the “Vietnam Syndrome” and inaugurate a New Imperialism that asserts America’s right to smash anti-Western movements around the globe using U.S. military and economic power.
With regard to (a), any politician or press analyst with an ounce of independence should have questioned the President’s promise to expand the “war on terrorism” indefinitely in time and space, without offering one word on how to deal with the long-term causes and conditions that make terrorism an attractive option for so many people around the world. Independent critics would also ask what the rules of engagement are to be: for example, whether the U.S. is preparing to attack Lebanon for not acting against Hizbollah, which Bush calls a terrorist organization, but which is also the largest and most representative political party in south Lebanon.
Why threaten North Korea at a time when South Korea’s Kim Dae Jung is trying to make peace with the North? Why single out Iraq and Iran? Bush claims to be worried about these “rogue states” supplying anti-American groups with weapons of mass destruction, but what bothers the hegemonists most is simply that they will not follow American orders. Iran is contesting U.S. control of western Afghanistan and actively supporting the Palestinians. Iraq continues to exist, despite U.S. efforts to partition it and eliminate Saddam Hussein. For the New Imperialists, this sort of independence is intolerable.
With regard to (b), independent analysts should have asked what it means to “take the side” of forces who share Bush’s interpretation of American values. During the Cold War, this meant running money and guns to opposition groups in nations whose governments the U.S. wanted overthrown (Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Dominican Republic, Congo, Angola, etc.), and giving massive economic and military aid to governments it did not want overthrown, in each case threatening to supplement this assistance with direct use of U.S. warplanes, naval vessels, and troops as needed. The West remained relatively secure during the Cold War, since, with the exceptions of the struggles in Indochina and Afghanistan, the two superpowers fought mostly through proxies on the territory of Third World nations. Ironically, now that the U.S. is the world’s sole superpower, those whom it oppresses and alienates are irresistibly drawn to attack it directly using the traditional weapon of the weak: terrorism.
Mr. Bush does not understand that American insecurity has increased at the same time that its military power has become overwhelming. In the spell of false analogies, he believes that he is a wartime president, a Lincoln or a Roosevelt. Driven by fear, power-lust and a thirst for vengeance, he is in the process of expanding the “enemy” in rapid stages from al Qaeda to any group he defines as terrorist, from the Taliban to any government he defines as evil, and from terrorists to any political movement that he defines as opposed to American values. The President and his cohorts seem to have no idea that that the probable effect of this policy abroad will be to produce “two, three, many al Quaedas.” In a real sense, they live increasingly in a world of delusion.
The pseudo-opposition and the press may continue to encourage Mr. Bush in his fantasy that military force can secure the West against terrorist attacks and popular rebellions. Those interested in peace and conflict resolution need to recall their people to reality by demonstrating that this is a fantasy of the most dangerous sort, and that there are humane and practical alternatives to the New Imperialism.
_______________________________________
* Richard E. Rubenstein is professor of conflict resolution and public affairs at George Mason University. He has written extensively on terrorism, imperialism, and the history of religious conflict.
Posted February 8, 2002
