Bush’s Road to Ruin

As President Bush moves to unilaterally attack Iraq, designs similar attacks on other targeted countries, encourages record federal budget deficits, blatantly favors corporations and the wealthy in policy, and dismisses dissent expressed by our allies and those participating in the largest global protests in history, one is tempted to ask: is the Bush administration perhaps making a mistake?

Barbara Tuchman lists three characteristics of folly in government: 1) Obliviousness to the growing disaffection of constituents, 2) Primacy of self-aggrandizement, and 3) Illusion of invulnerable status.

Well, looks like Bush hit the trifecta.

With respect to disaffection of constituents, Bush appears disconnected from any concern for organized expression of dissent in the US population or abroad, declaring “size of protest - it’s like deciding, well, I’m going to decide policy based upon a focus group.” Secretary of State Powell remarked that despite massive anti-war protests, “So many nations recognize this danger. And they do it in the face of public opposition.” The paternal attitude of acknowledging the forces of democracy pulling in one direction, followed by a purposeful march in the other to secure the ‘national interest’, reveals a faulty understanding and perhaps even a contempt for the functioning of democracy and the will of the electorate. In the United Nations debate, the US - despite its attempts at coercion and bribery - could not muster the 9 out of 15 votes necessary for passage of a new resolution, even discounting the threatened veto of three out of five permanent members on the Council. Our traditional ally Turkey wouldn’t allow use of its bases, despite an intended bribe of $16 billion (3.5% of Turkish GDP); 90% of its population is opposed to war and the Turkish parliament has recognized its duty to act on the electorate’s behalf. Over 100 US cities have passed resolutions condemning unilateral, un-sanctioned war against Iraq, a collective act of municipal protest without precedent in US history, even during Vietnam. Students in colleges and high schools throughout the nation are widely engaging in organized protest against what they view as reckless and shameful foreign policy. Bush and his advisors have dangerously insulated themselves from these voices collectively speaking in the negative against current policy.

With respect to Tuchman’s second element of folly, primacy of self-aggrandizement, the interlocking web of defense and corporate interests surrounding the Bush administration reflects a successful advance by the forces of greed and corruption in the capitol. Bush and his corporate supporters profit from war and the construction of a national security state in the US, with the phantom threat of terrorism posed as justification. By destroying much of Iraq through a broad unleashing of firepower, the Bush administration will saddle the US taxpayer with a bill running into the hundreds of billions of dollars, with the money going to:

1. Corporate insiders such as Halliburton and Bechtel who will reap billions in reconstruction projects in Iraq.
2. New defense contracts for firms such as Lockheed, Raytheon, and Boeing who supply the bombs that will be dropped on Iraqis.
3. Oil exploration firms such as Schlumberger and Halliburton who will be awarded contracts to develop Iraq’s reserves, second largest in the world.
4. Favored oil firms such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron through profits from royalties earned on production of Iraqi oil, estimated at 15% of oil produced.
5. Those in Bush’s inner circle with financial ties to the defense/security industry, including Richard Perle, whose venture firm Trireme invests in defense and security interests, and Bush Sr. who works for Carlyle Group, the largest investor in the global defense and arms production industries.

With respect to the third mark of folly, the illusion of invulnerability, Bush and his team speak as if the US were the only world power, immune to forces moving among other nations of the world. The US does spend more on defense ($400 billion) than the rest of the world combined, and thirty times the entire GDP of Iraq, but this is a hollow, unstable form of power. If the US were esteemed and revered throughout the world, American power would be at its pinnacle; in the current state it is only the illusion of power, based on brawn and intimidation rather than understanding and foresight. If the Bush Cheney gang truly believe that deployment of military force provides security, they have only to look to recent examples such as the USSR, Indonesia, The Philippines, and Argentina to see how a mobilized populace can overthrow an establishment which in comparison seems to possess a large advantage in terms of deployable force.

Even though the US does possess the largest national economy, at $10 trillion, this represents only 22% of the world economy, and is smaller than that of Europe. We are highly dependent upon imports and exports for our economic well-being, and if increased international tensions translate to higher levels of protectionism and trade retaliation, the US will surely come out the loser in the long run. The US population makes up just 5% of the world’s total, compared to 20% for the Muslim populations. On a purely human level, Americans’ quality of life will be greatly reduced by the fact that we can no longer travel freely throughout the world without feeling the scorn and hatred of other communities, even those in Europe, who feel betrayed and oppressed by the US government’s contempt for international law and the democratic principles of non-aggression and self-determination.

As opposed to Bush’s sunny view of a wonderful reception for the cavalry arriving in Iraq, here is a description of events which are more likely:

1. The highly unstable ethnic balance in Iraq, long held in check by Saddam’s repressive government, is unleashed as from a pressure cooker, with Kurds in Northern Iraq fighting for independence, Turks seeking to subdue them, and Sunnis and Shiites pursuing the bloody fulfillment of long standing internecine rivalries.
2. The use of biological and chemical weapons by Saddam leads to a retaliatory nuclear strike by Israel or the US, an event which Rumsfeld and the US military staff have openly considered an option, coyly describing their hypothetical military response as something “dramatic”.
3. Iran, seeking to secure borders or obtain additional territory, enters the conflict, leading to a war between Turkey and Iran or the US and Iran, or all three.
4. Enraged Muslims in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, or Syria move to seize power, leading to additional conflict and the potential for nuclear war between Pakistan and India or Israel and any of its hostile neighbors.
5. Saddam, facing defeat and execution by US forces or a military war tribunal, passes weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups which he otherwise would not have done business with, resulting in an attack on British or American cities by the recipient terrorist group.

These are the immediate threats, though the longer term damage done by Bush’s reckless folly could be detailed in similar form, with a dissolution of American credibility abroad and the crippling of the nation itself visible on the horizon. Former Ambassador to the Soviet Union George Kennan, speaking in dissent before the Foreign Relations Committee in 1966 during hearings on Vietnam, elegantly summarized the potential damage incurred by an unjust war. As described in The March of Folly: “the spectacle of America inflicting ‘grievous damage on the lives of a poor and helpless people, particularly on a people of different race and color… This spectacle produces reactions among millions of people throughout the world profoundly detrimental to the image we would like them to hold of this country’… wherever the standard of liberty is unfurled in the world, ‘there will be America’s heart… but she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.’ Pursuing monsters meant endless wars in which ‘the fundamental maxim of [American] policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.’”

The unilateral invasion of Iraq, with all of the diseased arguments advanced for its justification, reflects another step in the loss of America’s virtue and a leaping bound into the abyss of folly.
                                                                                                                                                                   March, 2003