American Neo Conservatism and the World Order - Essay Example

American Neo Conservatism and the World Order Prior to September 11, 2001, George W. Bush might have been described by many as a floundering American president. Looking for his political niche that would help him to stand out amongst more flamboyant and seasoned Republican party politicos in Washington, D.C., Bush and company focused on domestic policy, most notably American tax relief. However, the events of September 11, 2001, provided an opportunity for Bush to promote himself as something much larger than the American president who issued millions of Americans a $250 tax rebate check; post 9/11, Bush took center stage as a rhetoric spewing neo conservative armed with an agenda for realigning, if not the world order, certainly the Middle East order, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan, and, then, Iraq. Backed by an American nuclear arsenal and war machine, Bush tossed the words "freedom" and "democracy" about, making them sound like cheap and meaningless words. Taking advantage of the fact that Americans were distracted with the aftermath of September 11, Bush addressed the world saying, "Since America's emergence as a world power roughly a century ago, we have made many errors, but we have been the greatest force for good among the nations of the earth. A diminution of American power or influence bodes ill for our country, our friends, and our principles (Marquardt 2004, 1)." Later, the question would be asked whether or not the terrorists behind the events of September 11 had awakened a sleeping giant,1 or whether the giant had in fact been waiting in the wings waiting for his cue to come on stage. When George Bush made his announcement to Americans that they would respond to the events of 9/11 with an armed assault against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, he did not share with his fellow Americans that already talk had been going on in the White House of a plan to invade Iraq. In November, 2001, ". . . Bush asked his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to revise the U.S. war plan for Iraq and publicly called for the return of UN arms inspectors to the country (Barry 2005, 1)." While a response of moving militarily against Afghanistan as the threshold of operations for the terrorists who had attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 went unquestioned by most Americans; neo conservative plans of pre-emptive defense tactics against Iraq left many Americans scratching their heads in contemplation of the rhetoric coming out of the White House. It was the notion of a "pre-emptive" strike against a perceived threat to America that caused many, amongst them Democrats, who had previously supported the administration in its response to the 9/11 terrorists in Afghanistan to now jump off the band wagon and put enough distance between themselves and the Bush administration so as to regain perspective of what actions were going on that were clearly being driven the neo conservatives who gained momentum following the events of 9/11. Amongst those who attempted to distance themselves from the Bush administration during the talk of pre-emptive invasion of Iraq period, were world leaders, some of whom seemed taken aback by Bush's pre-emptive rhetoric. "Our closest allies have spoken out against an invasion of Iraq. Gerhard Schroder, leading a usually complaisant Germany but locked in a tough re-election fight, has gone so far as to label this possibility an "'adventure,'" sparking a protest from our ambassador (Galston 2002, 1)." Bush administration officials were accused of ignoring and disregarding the thoughts of those world leaders with whom the United States had close ties (1). The idea of a long term military engagement in the Middle East gave rise to concerns that America was embarking on yet another disastrous course of military occupation and conflict, just as they had during the Viet Nam era; provoking comment from former secretary of state, Henry Kissinger (1). Kissinger weighed in saying, "Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system (1)." Still, the white house neo-cons responded that indeed a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would be justified since Iraq posed a significant threat to the United States (1). Certainly the posturing of Saddam Hussein, alluding to Iraq's military prowess, refusing to cooperate with UN inspectors in their work to verify Iraq's compliance with restrictions imposed against Iraq with regard to weapons of mass destruction, which had been imposed upon the country following the Gulf War. It was seemingly a last minute realization for Saddam Hussein when he relented and agreed to cooperate fully with UN inspectors; but by that time the Bush administration had well begun its invasion of Iraq. To the extent that Bush was able to gain or maintain support at home for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, was in some part as a result of the success America was experiencing in its efforts in Afghanistan. Although Osama bin Laden continued to be an elusive figure - at one point it was even suggested that the Al Qaeda leader was dead - the US had successfully presided over the installation of Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. While Karzai seemed nothing short of uneasy in his new role at first, in the time since his installation the president has demonstrated a greater comfort level and seemingly taken the reigns of command rendering the US military a presence that continues its search for the Taliban and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden; and training Afghan forces. In 2004, Radak Sikorski, who had been in Afghanistan following the Russian occupation inn the country, in writing for the National Review, acknowledged America's success in Afghanistan, surmised that two things could go wrong there (Sikorski 2004, 1). One of things, Sikorski suggested, was that America would become "distracted" and leave the country without completing the job it has begun there (1). The other thing that could go wrong would be an overthrow of the current Pakistani government, headed by Pakistan's president, General Musharraf (1). Either event would throw Afghanistan's fledgling government under Karzai into a turmoil from which it might not recover. However, it has been two years since Sikorski's observations and the U.S. continues to be a presence in Afghanistan and continues to be a deterrent to Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, and Karzai's government seems stronger than ever. While most Americans felt there was reason to invade Afghanistan, most were less sure about why America should invade Iraq. The vice president, Dick Cheney, outlined for Americans twenty reasons why America should invade Iraq (Waller 2002, 1). The reasons enumerated by the vice president are as follows (1): 1. "'September 11 and its aftermath awakened this nation to danger, to the true ambitions of the global terror network and to the reality that weapons of mass destruction are being sought by determined enemies who would not hesitate to use them against us (Waller 2002, 1).'" 2. "'In the old days of the Cold War, we were able to manage the threat with strategies of deterrence and containment. But it's a lot tougher to deter enemies who have no country to defend. And containment is not possible when dictators obtain weapons of mass destruction and are prepared to share them with terrorists who intend to inflict catastrophic casualties on the United States (Waller 2002, 1).'" 3. "'Wars are never won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy. We will take every step necessary to make sure our country is secure. And we will prevail . . . (Waller 2002, 1)'" 4. "'The case of Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of our country, requires a candid appraisal of the facts . . . .We are, after all, dealing with the same dictator who shoots at American and British pilots in the no-fly zone on a regular basis, the same dictator who dispatched a team of assassins to murder former president (George H. W.) Bush as he traveled abroad, the same dictator who invaded Iran and Kuwait and has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the same dictator who has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for the better part of two decades (Waller 2002, 1).'" 5. "'After his defeat in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, Saddam agreed under U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 to cease all development of weapons of mass destruction. He agreed to end his nuclear weapons program. He agreed to destroy his chemical and biological weapons. He further agreed to admit U.N. inspection teams into his country to ensure that he was in fact complying with these terms. In the past decade, Saddam has systematically broken each of these agreements (Waller 2002, 1).'" 6. What he wants is more time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical-biological-weapons programs and to gain possession of nuclear arms (Waller 2002, 1).'" 7. "'The Iraqi regime has in fact been very busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents. And they continue to pursue the nuclear program they began so many years ago. These are not weapons for the purpose of defending Iraq; these are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam can hold the threat over the head of anyone he chooses, in his own region or beyond (Waller 2002, 1).'" 8. "'Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors - confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth . . . .There is no basis in Saddam Hussein's conduct or history to discount any of the concerns that I am raising (Waller 2002, 1).'" 9. "'Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States and for the peace of the world. The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already his willingness to use such weapons, and has done so in his war with Iran and against his own people. Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail (Waller 2002, 1).'" 10. "'During the spring of 1995, inspectors were actually on the verge of declaring that Saddam's programs to develop commercial weapons and longer range ballistic missiles had been fully accounted for and shut down. Then Saddam's son-in-law suddenly defected and began sharing information. Within days the inspectors were led to an Iraqi chicken farm. Hidden there were boxes of documents and lots of evidence regarding Iraq's most secret weapons program. That should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself (Waller 2002, 1).'" 11. "'Saddam ... devised an elaborate program to conceal his active efforts to build chemical and biological weapons. And one must keep in mind the history of U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. Even as they were conducting the most intrusive system of arms control in history, the inspectors missed a great deal.... Yet Saddam Hussein had sought to frustrate and deceive them at every turn, and was often successful in doing so (Waller 2002, 1).'" 12. "'Saddam has perfected the game of cheat and retreat, and is very skilled in the art of denial and deception. A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow 'back in his box (Waller 2002, 1).'" 13. "'Inspections are not an end in themselves. The objective has to be disarmament, to compel Iraqi compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolutions that call for the complete destruction of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and an end to all efforts to develop or produce more chemical, biological or nuclear weapons (Waller 2002, 1).'" 14. "'Nothing in the last dozen years has stopped him--not his agreements, not the discoveries of the inspectors, not the revelations by defectors, not criticism or ostracism by the international community and not four days of bombings by the U.S. in 1998 (Waller 2002, 1).'" 15. "Some concede that Saddam is evil, power-hungry and a menace but that, until he crosses the threshold of actually possessing nuclear weapons, we should rule out any pre-emptive action. That logic seems to me to be deeply flawed. The argument comes down to this: Yes, Saddam is as dangerous as we say he is; we just need to let him get stronger before we do anything about it (Waller 2002, 1).'" 16. "What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve. As President [George W.] Bush has said, time is not on our side. "Deliverable weapons of mass destruction at the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action (Waller 2002, 1).'" 17. "'Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats is eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace" Who does not expect as much jubilation in Iraq as in Afghanistan after the U.S. helped oust the Taliban' "Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991 (Waller 2002, 1).'" 18. "'In other times the world saw how the United States defeated fierce enemies, then helped rebuild their countries, forming strong bonds between our peoples and our governments. Today in Afghanistan, the world is seeing that America acts not to conquer but to liberate, and remains in friendship to help the people build a future of stability, self-determination and peace. We would act in that same spirit after a regime change in Iraq (Waller 2002, 1).'" 19. "'The president has made it very clear that there is no neutral ground in the fight against terror. Those who harbor terrorists share guilt for the acts they commit. Under the Bush Doctrine, a regime that harbors or supports terrorists will be regarded as hostile to the United States (Waller 2002, 1).'" 20. "'Our goal would be an Iraq that has territorial integrity, a government that is democratic and pluralistic, a nation where the human rights of every ethnic and religious group are recognized and protected. In that troubled land, all who seek justice and dignity and the chance to live their own lives can know they have a friend and ally in the United States of America (Waller 2002, 1).'" In the twenty enumerated criteria as to why America would be well served by an invasion of Iraq, Cheney focuses on weapons of mass destruction as a central theme. Without this focus on WMD (weapons of mass destruction), Cheney's remarks regarding regime change would have less impact on Americans concerned about Saddam's actual capabilities and less concerned about a dictator reduced to the status of a pompous figure head spewing ideas about what he'd like to do, as opposed to what he could actually do. Regime change itself would have been less important in the minds of most Americans. Even in lieu of the neo-conservative rhetoric, the Bush administration probably could not have pulled off the widespread support of the American in that effort to the extent that they did without the American press corps. As American forces prepared to invade Iraq, the Bush administration pulled off a remarkable coup de teat of manipulation of the American and world press corps, which contributed in a large way to support for America's invasion of Iraq. Reporters were allowed to report coverage of the invasion live, as they rode along with American troops, inside tanks, alongside commanding officers and the troops. Network news channels like FOX News, a cable network news source that projects a strong conservative ideology, was among the favored news entities that "rode along" with the invasion (Fox News 2003). When given the choice to ride along and report the invasion or stand on the balcony of hotels hundreds of miles from the action and broadcast the streaking white tails of missile exchange; most news entities opted for the opportune ride along and criticism about the invasion of Iraq by those news entities for the most part fell silent. Later, the press - except perhaps FOX - would lament the misinformation concerning WMD. "Both before and during the war, the press was slow to acknowledge the extent to which it had been duped by misinformation and fabrication (including the highly staged toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein, and the Hollywood style make-believe attention to the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch (Allan & Zelizer 2004, 374)." Disregarding important information and experts, including that of Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector, who had worked in Iraq and repeatedly said that the UN had in fact found and destroyed Saddam's WMD, rendering Iraq virtually without capability and harmless (374). Still, America invaded Iraq. Unfortunately, where America has gained ground militarily and politically in Afghanistan, it has not seen that same progress in Iraq. Nor have the Americans been received with the same welcoming in Iraq as have the Americans been in Afghanistan. Even the detractors of the neo conservative Bush camp must have fallen silent when, following the American invasion of Iraq and the disappearance of Saddam Hussein; the image of newly "liberated" citizens in Baghdad attempting to bring down a statute of the fallen dictator, then, when faced with the same impossible task in art that they had been faced with in life, the citizens beckoned an American tank to help them pull down the statue (Allen & Zelizer 2004, 29). The image - though there would later be accusations that was staged - prompted George W. Bush to make public statements wherein he told the American people that the war was won and America had achieved a victory over one of the countries comprising the "axis of evil (Shuja 2002, 1)." Once the occupation phase of Iraq began, there immediately began to be problems. Somehow it had been lost on the neo conservatives that Saddam Hussein, villain that he was, had maintained - until shortly before the invasion - a non-secular government in Iraq. What is going on in Iraq now, is the vying for power by different Islamic groups, including the Taliban. The sitting government in Iraq, elected through due process by the people in a free election, is, as was Karzai in the beginning; struggling to maintain and establish itself as legitimate. That elected government is one of Shia Muslim parties, and it gives rise to concern as to whether not Iraq will become a secular state (Freeman 2005, 1). All the while the various non-elected factions and others that have sprung up and armed themselves in the name of Islam, are proving to be a more deadly and threatening force in Iraq than they were, or are, in Afghanistan. The coalition forces that once supported George W. Bush have drastically been reduced, and in 2005, Bush began making statements about reducing the number of troops in Iraq ". . . in advance of this year's midterm congressional elections (Blanche 2006, 1)." Although America has had success in capturing or killing certain Al Qaeda leaders, the death of one leader simply does not prevent the rise of a new one - perhaps even more ruthlessly determined to succeed in ways that the previous and fallen leader did not succeed. Death and destruction in Iraq, including the deaths of numerous American soldiers, continues with an increasing violence and vigor that has caused neoconservative support in Washington, DC to wane (Marquardt 2006, 1). However, to focus solely on the United States as an invader, although such perspective no doubt facilitates the goals of extremists on either side of the globe; would yield, if not a misleading, certainly an incomplete conclusion. In the years leading up to September 11, during the Clinton administration, there strong signs, actual events, that should have caused America to be much more watchful of what was going on in the Middle East. The fact that Saddam Hussein himself was rattling his saber, actually shooting at American and British pilots over the "no fly zone," and talking about Iraq's war capabilities, combined with the acts of terror against America; the USS Cole, the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and other such events should have spoken loud and clear as to what was going on in the Middle East. A bold movement was and continues to be afoot, and one about which Saddam Hussein was clearly, by his aggressive stance, aware of such that he felt comfortable in not cooperating with the United Nations and shooting at American and British jets. It is not just a question of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or chemical biological warfare, because we now know that they did not. Rather, it becomes a question of where is the most strategic place for America to be in order to counter the greater threat that exists in the Middle East; that is, the collapse of the governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon under the weight of a mounting terrorist movement aimed at world destruction and domination. Where we can now, in hindsight, doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction we cannot and have not doubted the goals of the terrorism that perhaps prompted Saddam Hussein to boldly posture himself as the antagonist against the west. While the invasion of Afghanistan was a necessary response, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was a necessary evil in that America must be strategically prepared to confront the terrorist threat, which is clearly relentlessly bent on destroying America. The true genius of Osama bin Ladden lays in the fact that he commandeered commercial jets, turning them into weapons of mass destruction; but that he harnessed the attention of the Muslim world, directing it away from conflict amongst itself, and redirected the conflict towards the west thereby unifying Islamic fundamentalists. If the west is going to successfully confront - and it is clear we must - the Islamic fundamentalist behind terrorism, there is no more strategic geography from which to take the stand against terrorism than in Iraq. Thus, the invasion of Afghanistan as a response and the invasion of Iraq as a deterrent to continued aggression against the west and as a means of containing the terrorist threat in the Middle East, were indeed necessary evils. Works Cited Allan, Stuart and Barbie Zelizer, eds. 2004. Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime. New York: Routledge. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=107967662. Blanche, Ed. 2006. A Crumbling Coalition: Despite the Rhetoric from Washington, Which Attempts to Persuade the International Community Things Are Improving, US Allies Are Peeling Away as the Crisis in Iraq Deepens. The Middle East, March, 16+. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5014162490. Boyd-Barrett, Oliver. 2004. "1 Understanding". In Reporting War: Journalism in Wartime, ed. Allan, Stuart and Barbie Zelizer:25-42. New York: Routledge. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=107967698. Bush Defends Iraq Invasion as Deterrent to Terrorism. 2004. Manila Bulletin, July 14, NA. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5006286907. The Invasion of Iraq Was Unnecessary, the Occupation Incompetent and Now It Has Handed Osama Bin Laden His Best Recruiting Sergeant; How Britain Is Paying with Blood for Being Bush's Pillion Passenger. 2005. The Mail on Sunday (London, England), July 24, 27. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5009949273. Jalali, Ali A. 2001. Afghanistan: The Anatomy of an Ongoing Conflict. Parameters 31, no. 1: 85. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5002393137. Marquardt, Erich. 2004. 'The Waning Influence of Neoconservative Strategists. Power and Internet News Report. [on-line] http://www.pinr.com/report.php'ac=view_report&report_id=230&language_id=1. Mullahs Cast Their Shadow over Iraq; Poll Triumph for Shias Raises Fear of Fundamentalist Drift. 2005. The Daily Mail (London, England), February 14, 16. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5008650334. Shuja, Sharif M. 2002. Coping with the 'Axis of Evil'. Contemporary Review, May, 278+. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5000770863. Sikorski, Radek. 2004. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan . How It's Going Three Years after Invasion/liberation. National Review, October 11, 34. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5009445027. Waller, J. Michael. 2002. 20 Reasons to Overthrow Saddam: The Media Say the Bush Team Hasn't Made Its Case for Invading Iraq. but Statements by Dick Cheney Make Clear Why the U.S. Will Invade Iraq and Finish off Saddam. Insight on the News, September 30, 19+. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst'a=o&d=5000838508. Read More