WAR IN IRAQ: GOING BACK IN TIME

Today, in a disquieted commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the American war in Iraq, I am doing something totally unexpected from a vehement critic of that cynical and essentially wicked adventure, having since, and even quite recently, been exposed as an outright fraud perpetrated against the American public and against the whole world by the Bush Administration… I am ostensibly rising in its defense!!!

Having said that, let us clear up the mystery as fast as possible. What I am offering the reader is an article of mine, never published, written more than ten years ago, in early March 2003, that is, a couple of weeks before the start of the war. Let me remind the reader that, having been severely disgusted by President Bill Clinton’s shabby and terribly counterproductive treatment of post-Soviet Russia, I had welcomed first the candidacy and later the presidency of George W. Bush, and it would take me three years to figure out to my dismay what his presidency was really all about.

The article below was written when I still supported Mr. Bush and his ill-advised and ill-fated policy vis-à-vis Iraq. There can be no greater condemnation, in my opinion, of that policy and of its miserable outcome than this memorable article of mine, written in its defense.---

The American national debate over Iraq has become silly, and even irresponsible, as soon as the issue was allowed to be shaped as “war vs. peace.” What ought to be debated instead, is “war for a right cause vs. war for a wrong cause.”

The fault is not entirely that of the public. Regrettably, the public has been getting conflicting signals about Washington’s basic goals in Iraq. Two different voices are saying two very different things, hence, the confusion.

Nobody wants a war without a cause, but only a fringe few would oppose a war in self-defense. I strongly support the principle of preemption, and in this case the Bush Doctrine of Preemption whenever and wherever America’s national interest is truly at stake. A credible threat of preemption is the best chance of prevention. By threatening war, one can effectively fight for peace. Even at this late hour, I am convinced that the actual war on Iraq is not inevitable; that America can end up victorious without having to put any of her military men and women in harm’s way, as long as she keeps up enough pressure on Saddam to force him to submit to the demands of the international community as expressed by the UN Security Council Resolutions. However, if this does not solve the problem, the United States should go to war, remove the clear and present danger, and then quickly get out, leaving it to the United Nations to clean up the ensuing mess.

The Bush Administration need not be required to provide public proof of the clear and present danger when such exposure jeopardizes America’s sources and methods. It is quite enough for the public to be solemnly reassured by its leaders that such a danger really exists.

The essence of good political judgment is simple: basic morality and common sense. The issues can always be reduced to black and white, while the gray area is the domain of the diplomats, whose job is fine-tuning. Anybody who argues otherwise, plays the Wizard of Oz. In these simple terms, it is self-evident that every nation has a legitimate right to defend itself and its closest allies. As long as the Bush Administration represents its case along these lines, the world will be on its side. Such was the case in November 2002 when the United Nations Security Council voted 15:0 in favor of the American Resolution on Iraq, a historic political triumph for the Bush Administration. Ironically, none of those Saddam’s gracious “concessions” of the last four months, which the anti-Bush protesters cite as the main reason for not going to war, would ever have been possible without President Bush’s policy of threatening a war.

Having said that, the dramatic international about-face we are witnessing today cannot be easily attributed to the American “doves” running amok, or to some exceptional fickleness and perfidy of the world-at-large, but to the growing persistence of this other, much louder voice rising out of Washington. It is the voice of the so-called “neoconservatives,” whom the Bush Administration has unfortunately failed to unequivocally repudiate and disavow. These “neocons” will never be satisfied with disarming Saddam and removing the threat he poses to this country’s national security. Their agenda requires going to war no matter what.

The culprit here is the philosophy underlying the much-talked-about but poorly comprehended Doctrine of Globalism, not so much in terms of its economic significance, as in its efforts to legitimize itself on moral grounds. The “Ethical Manifesto” of Globalism presumably promotes an enlightened humanitarian effort to change the world into a better place by stressing internationalism as the way of the future, and by fighting against nationalism as the main obstacle to progress. Seeing any type of nationalism as the main source of social injustice and persecution of minorities, it virtually equates healthy patriotism and national pride with the extreme types of nationalist expression. Furthermore, it overrates the incentives of internationalism and underrates and berates the forces of nationalism around the world.

The passion to better the world is understandable and honorable in theoretical terms, but the doctrine itself is terribly flawed. I am sure that the current international firestorm against the United States is not aimed at the America we have known and loved most of the time, but precisely at the Globalist offensive conducted by the neoconservatives under the guise of this President’s foreign policy.

President Bush is by no means a Globalist. A few years ago he clearly went on record against the principle of nation-building: the cornerstone of the internationalist agenda. It is therefore a great injustice that America’s friends and foes see him not through the prism of his stated convictions, but through the crooked mirror of a false identification. Today, his original message does not come out as clear as it should. Meantime, his public agenda has been hijacked by his arrogant impersonators. Drawn into the mental quagmire of the fuzzy definitions, the public is having a hard time discerning the true nature of America’s involvement with Iraq: is it indeed America’s legitimate and incontrovertible national interest or somebody else’s internationalist utopia?

Once this question has been answered unequivocally, the insanity of this distorted quasi-debate should stop, and the much-needed healing process, both within this nation and between her and the outside world, must promptly take its course. I am therefore urging President Bush to introduce such a clarity into the position of his Administration.