A Logical Solution in the Ideas of Preemptive War and Preventative Democracy - Case Study Example

The ongoing war on terror being led by the United s is now being discussed and debated at many forums worldwide. As the time is progressing the tone and tenor of such debated is increasing becoming much more focused. Being a democratic nation, the decision making in America must have been a democratic process, but in these matters, apparently, the citizens have no say and it appears the decision making process is more determined by how President Bush and his administration views this fight. America has indeed suffered at the hands of some terrorists in the past, but how these unfortunate incidents led to full scale wars on some nations is another side of the story. The general public was of course told about the emerging fear from some countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran etc. But in the aftermath of sending across troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ongoing war for well over five years now, it appears all such stories had elements of doubt. Benjamin Barber, author of Fear’s Empire, advocates propagation of democratic regimes in different countries to prevent the continuation and spread of terrorism. This essay will discuss the failures in Barber’s attempt to establish a logical solution in the ideas of preemptive war and preventative democracy, interdependence, and human nature. It is quite apparent that the citizens of the United States of America are definitely under the government propagated impression about the threats of terrorism. This is particularly true after the unfortunate 9/11 attacks on American sovereignty and pride. Benjamin Barber argues that Bush’s antics have been able to install the fear of terror into his people to approach. The Bush administration has been using this very fear psychosis in dealing with suspected terror regimes around the world. He also presents his viewpoint that this is not the most effective way of dealing with such a situation and points out many faults and dangers of going into “preemptive war” instead of encouraging the idea of “preventative democracy”. Preemptive war can be defined in basic terms as disabling the enemy before the enemy strikes first. In Barber’s opinion, such instances when a nation tries to prove its dominance over others, this only produces more ill-feelings and resolves for vengeance on the parts of the oppressed. He believes that building a defense around one’s country through presumption will only foster even more chaos. Clearly, the most effective (but not completely moral) way of expanding an ideology into foreign countries is by placing a threat and initiating fear if those under oppression fail to appease and conform, whether it be through direct or indirect methods. Furthermore, Barber believes that the only option of preventing the globe from manifesting more evil is through some of the methods suggested by him. Barbers foundation of criticism is the disputation that the present government, through reckless propaganda and aggressive posturing, has been able to bring in a sense of fear amongst the citizens and this fear is being used in devising a hostile foreign policy. To vanquish such a dilemma, Barber suggests the idea of instigating democracy into other countries through encouragement. This idea would replace the current methods used by some of the allied nations, which are in league with US in the war efforts. Barber says, “Fear’s empire leaves no room for democracy, while democracy refuses to make room for fear” (50). He claims that Bush is now pursuing the art of Pax Americana, and that democratic countries rarely wage war upon each other. Pax Americana plainly states that “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” (53). Democracy, or any other type of government, cannot simply be forcibly promoted. How realistic will be Barber’s proposition remains to be seen, particularly in view of examples like Israel and South Korea. The United States has previously shed the light of democracy onto places such as South Korea and Israel, but only because both were under some kind of pressure and being terrorized by some opposing forces. The American government clearly took advantage of this situation and appeared as a friendly ally to save the day. To maintain this relationship until present day, the US has been supplying these ‘enlightened’ nations with weapons to preserve their democratic standpoint and well-being. It is evident that an ideology is commonly seen as a solution or a fix to a country that is under the impression of fear or threat, and is often regarded as a promise to plan defenses and foresee any opposing attack. In case of the Middle East, most of the people are paternalistic and prefer strong leaders who could bring about radical changes. Democracy cannot be simply given to this area because the political culture within the region is actively against the idea and is viewed as an alien idea, such as the United States views on communism. Naturally, the thought of turning other countries into democratic followers would create a euphoric sense of peace and understanding. The possibility of this happening uniformly all around the globe is virtually impossible, because of divergence of views and political compulsion in many countries. In fact leaders in different parts of the world today have their own ideas of how power should be distributed and how their civilization should be run. In the ongoing war against terror today the war on terrorism in the Middle East is being fought by a series of pre-emptive attacks by the United States’ army, which Barber has clearly documented in his book. The Canadian peace-keeping forces stationed in Iraq are trying to improve the conditions of the country by teaching them about the strong points of democracy. The reason behind this could actually be the fear that the Middle East is under threat by the U.S, and certainly would not be willing to conform to democracy if the circumstances were any different. If we go down the history lane, we could figure out the similarity in the way Joseph Stalin desired to spread the borders of communism by taking it into other countries appeared as he believed that it could solve any problems of opposition for international peace. By this analogy it appears that no country will be willing to accept democracy if it is forced upon them, provided of course they are not under some grave threat. It is suggested by Barber that world interdependence pairs most sensibly with a policy of preventive democracy. He dubs those supporting preventive democracy as ‘owls’ and those favoring preemptive war as ‘eagles’. The owl is "keen-sighted even in a world of shadows and farseeing even at night" (55). In contrast, the eagles are those who are “preternaturally impatient” and “fixed on the sovereign right of an independent United States and of its people” (55). According to those who are categorized as owls, it is a more idealized and efficient concept to target and attack the specified terrorists instead of sovereign states. This statement by Barber is completely hypocritical, because it is still based on the grounds of preemptive attack. By eliminating these terrorists we are simply exterminating other ideologies before they conflict with our own. By no means does this agree with his idea of preventative democracy, or the concept of interdependence. Barber argues that interdependence is a solution for overcoming a nation’s ideology of being independent and self-sufficient. He also claims that independence is a myth that drives the passion behind preemptive war. Independence is not a myth, it is clearly a mindset held by the average human being. Inevitably, independence creates room for individual identity, nationalism, and freedom. Apparently, each heritage and culture will enter into a form of democracy uniquely specific to it if states can realize the true benefits of being socially, politically, and economically tied and dependent upon one another. This brings forth the idea behind globalization and the increasingly global nature of human society and economy. It is true that most nations may currently depend upon each other in many economical aspects of trade, but politics is an idea very selective to culture and that country’s representation of itself. Barber’s proposed method of delivering his favored ideology can be interpreted as a way to achieve cultural conformity. I believe that this theory ironically runs along the lines of Marxist theories in the sense that a state will become supporter of revolution and enlightened to the potential utopian qualities. If all are under the same impression while being equally harnessed by the demands of globalization, won’t societies live happily ever after in a world of peace? Appears highly doubtful. Eventually this idea will fail due to the delicate nature of a factor known as ‘human nature’. The drive to control, pursue power, and use force to withhold rule and authority over a group of people is the motive found deeply rooted within most human beings. It is inevitable to identify a person in a position of power who did not desire to increase such authority. Throughout history, there have been evidences of rulers yearning to push their beliefs and ways of life upon people, but nations and populations did not follow the same mindset. It happens quite often that someone in a position of power will take advantage of his or her abilities and push the boundaries of peace for a more civilized living. This can be applied towards international and domestic affairs as well. But the notion of Barber that another nation will simply be encouraged into democracy by coercion or any means of basic human nature doesn’t appear to hold much water. In conclusion, it can be said that Barber’s arguments are indeed very creative, strong, and put forward with good intentions towards mankind. However, his propositions fail to include the driving force behind politics, control, and globalization. He also ignores the concept of how difficult it would be to simply encourage democracy in nations where a liking is taken towards more radical governments by the people, and that cultural standpoints play a major role in determining a country’s political position. Barber’s statements forget to include how most attempts proven successful at spreading the boarders of democracy have been backed by some sort of threat or fear in the eyes of those under pressure. If the basic fundamentals of human nature towards power did not exist, his utopian ideas could have been more realistic. However, in my opinion most ideologies with a similar means of distribution (such as Marxism) cannot be implemented without the use of force or preemptive attack. Works Cited Barber, Benjamin. Fears Empire. United States: W.W Norton & Company, 2004. Read More