IRAQ AND THE NEOCONS' PSEUDO-REALITY

"Ideology" is a bad word in the English-speaking world. It evokes Jacobin fanatics, inquisitors, goose-stepping storm troopers, commissars, and cultural revolutionaries. Adherents of an ideology are assumed to be brainwashed, imbued with mind-altering dogmas, and steeped in pseudo-reality—"a system of interested deceit"—so unlike the rest of us pragmatic empiricists who are blessed to rely on our common sense to guide us through the world as it really is. We live culturally, they live in ideology. To paraphrase Sartre, ideology is other people.

In today's America some of the most highly motivated of those "other people" inhabit the academia and the mainstream media. Others pretend to be the executors of our collective will, reside in Washington, and run the foreign policy of the United States. They fall into two categories. Some are inspired by the ideology of "idealistic" globalism, constructed upon the notion of America's exceptionalism: the United States is a proposition nation, founded upon the values of equality, human rights, tolerance, etc, etc; it is therefore unique, it is the "indispensable nation," a light to the world, whether the world wants it or not. "Humanitarian bombing" was those people's trademark, the Balkans their favorite playing field, and they thrived under Bill Clinton. They saw America as the ultimate arbitrator of domestic evolutions all over the world; to them foreign policy equated social policy on a global scale, and "nation-building" abroad was the equivalent of busing and affirmative action at home.

Under President George W. Bush the "other people" in the foreign policy establishment are guided by globalism's twin brother—by the neoconservative ideology that seeks and justifies unabashed American hegemony. Both strains strikingly analogous to their doctrinaire Marxist roots, and both are deeply inimical to the traditions and values of the American Republic. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States' federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints.

Their mendacity apparent in the misrepresentation of the Iraqi crisis to the American people only confirms what we have known about the species and the mindset for a long time. The nation has been pushed into the virtual-reality world of Sunday morning non-debates—the contentious issue is how to wage war and who to install in its aftermath, not whether and why—of fact-free opinion columns, and briefings in which facts are converted into fiction, and even the fictions give up all pretense to credibility. The ruling elite in Washington has acquired an ideological paradigm on the question of Iraq that goes beyond any one piece of deliberate policy, and which falls outside the parameters of rational debate. They have confused U.S. interests and prestige with those of the warring factions in the Middle East, to the point where, in Iraq, they insist on a war that, if successful, will do little to advance American interests—we'd be saddled with yet another Muslim protectorate, unstable and resentful—and that, if unsuccessful, will be hugely detrimental to those interests.

Before proceeding let me make my personal position clear. In the final years of the Soviet Union, as glasnost broadened the scope of permissible public debate, it was nevertheless advisable to precede any expression of controversial views with a little disclaimer, e.g. "While I hold no brief for the Islamic dushmans terrorizing the people of Afghanistan, I think we should withdraw from that country"; or, "While rejecting the notion that Western-style capitalism provides the best model for good life, I think that we should abandon central planning and collectivized agriculture in favor of free-market reforms."

It is a sign of these unpleasant times that one feels compelled to do the same, here and today, when discussing Iraq, but I am a realist and so be it: I think, unreservedly, that Saddam Hussein is a nasty piece of work. In fact I wish he were dead and gone, and someone very different in power in Baghdad. (Admittedly, hardly any leader in the Arab world is very different from Saddam: to bully, cheat, and lie abroad, and to oppress and rob at home, is the rule rather than exception in that political culture.) The Iraqi dictator has brought nothing but misery to his own people, as well as chronic instability to the region. His military adventures—including two disastrous wars—ended in fiascos, and yes, he did "gas his own people" (actually the Kurds, whom he sees as anything but "his own," but who had had the misfortune of living under his sway). If he could make them or buy them, Saddam would undoubtedly love to have all kinds of "weapons of mass destruction," and, in extremis, he would probably use them against a foe unable to retaliate in kind. (Nevertheless, he would not use them against a foe armed with nuclear weapons: brutal dictators are realists, and therefore devoid of suicidal tendencies.)

All of the above, while obviously necessary to the argument that the United States must topple Saddam by force, is not sufficient to make the argument stick. Since different members of the Bush Administration and the War Party have used different tools to support the basic argument, we need to examine them one by one and so introduce much-needed clarity into the debate.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11 the proponents of war against Iraq immediately claimed that it should be dealt with "once and for all" because it was in cohorts with Al-Qaeda. This turned out to be untrue. Saddam is a secular dictator with pan-Arabic, nationalist, rather than Islamic, delusions of grandeur. Accordingly his regime tends to support non-Islamic radicals, notably the PLO dissidents—including Abu Nidal, who was found murdered in his Baghdad lodgings recently—and he fears Muslim fundamentalist groups such as al-Qaeda. Bin Laden, for his part, regards the Iraqi dictator as a "bad Muslim" and wants him out of power. Widely circulated claim that Muhammad Atta, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, had met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague months before the hijackings, was discarded in April 2002, when the top Czech spymaster and federal law-enforcement officials both said an extensive investigation had found no evidence that the meeting ever took place. The war enthusiasts nevertheless do not give up, resorting to desperate ploys: on August 22, William Safire even claimed in the New York Times that "a score of terrorists" were captured by the U.S. Special Forces in Northern Iraq, including a Saddam agent and an Qaeda operative; there's even a "Qaeda-Saddam joint venture" to produce "a form of cyanide cream that kills on contact." This was all unsubstantiated rubbish.

Anticipating the absence of a smoking gun, within weeks of 9-11 the proponents of bombing Baghdad immediately declared that the absence of a clear link did not matter: we were waging a "war on terror," Iraq supported terrorists, ergo it was a legitimate target. The ruins of the Towers were still smoldering when Paul Wolfowitz declared that the time had come to settle the score with Saddam once and for all, and his old buddy Richard Perle—George W.'s part-Rasputin, part-Svengali—echoed the line ever since. A mere week after the attacks, in an open letter to Bush, Bill Kristol and two-dozen neocon leading lights (including Perle, Kagan, Krauthammer, Martin Peretz, and Norman Podhoretz), argued that "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power." Almost a year later Saffire repeated the line with his claim that "terror's most dangerous supporter can be found in Baghdad."

This is the neocons' dulaist pseudo-reality. In the real world there is evidence that Saddam has provided support to a variety of groups that oppose his regional adversaries—including the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq dissidents fighting the government of Iran, Kurdish rebels fighting Turkey, and, since the Palestinian uprising began in 2000, various Palestinian groups attacking Israel. None of those groups have targeted America. His mischief in this respect is no worse than Pakistan's support for the Kashmiri separatists who routinely resort to terror against India, or Georgia's benevolent tolerance of Chechen terrorists on its territory. Saddam's sins with respect to supporting terrorism pale compared to the Clinton Administration's warm embrace of the KLA, a terrorist cabal if there ever was one, composed of homicidal dope-dealers and pimps who now run Kosovo—compliments of the U.S. Air Force—having murdered or ethnically cleansed every non-Albanian they could lay their hands on. Yes, Saddam probably also does channel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, but in doing that he is only following the example of that "reliable ally" of the United States, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unless Messrs. Musharraf, Shevardnadze, Clinton, and Abdallah are judged by the same yardstick, Saddam's "support for terrorism" is not a serious argument.

The proponents of the war next resurrected the old claim that Iraq had to be attacked because it could be acquiring "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs) and was refusing to allow the U.N. weapons inspectors to find out if this were so. There was no proof of Saddam actually developing his arsenal; but that objection was discounted by Donald Rumsfeld in a turn of phrase worthy of Torquemada: "the absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence."

There is both more and less than meets the eye in the weapons saga. The Senate hearings two weeks ago were something of an eye-opener, when former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter—a Marine veteran, Bush voter, card-carrying Republican—blandly stated that in his considered opinion the Bush administration did not want renewed inspections of Iraq, because they would make war more difficult to justify. "A handful of ideologues have hijacked the national security policy of the United States for their own ambitions," Ritter said, insisting that Iraq was stripped of its WMDs, and the capacity to make them. Saddam is not a threat, not because he does not want to be but because he has been successfully declawed. All else is speculation and rhetoric entirely divorced from fact.

Ritter's former boss, Rolf Ekeus, head of United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991-97, supports this view and questions the stated reasons for withdrawing inspectors in the first place. He has accused the US of manipulating the UN inspections teams for their own political ends, and attempted to increase its influence over the inspections: "As time went on, some countries, especially the US, wanted to learn more about other parts of Iraq's capacity." It tried to find information about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein, and pressed the teams to inspect sensitive areas, such as Iraq's ministry of defense, when it was politically favorable for them to create a crisis—"inspections which were controversial from the Iraqis' view, and thereby created a blockage that could be used as a justification for a direct military action." In December 1998, one such fabricated crisis enabled Bill Clinton—then in the midst of the Lewinsky affair—to order UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq two days before renewing bombing. As it happened, most of the targets bombed were derived from the unique access the UN inspectors had enjoyed in Iraq, and had more to do with the security of Saddam than weapons of mass destruction.

In reality the current war fever is totally unconnected to weapons inspections. John Bolton, the arms control supremo, declared that the US "insists on regime change in Baghdad and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not." Bolton is probably aware that it would be audacious for a boldly unilateralist Administration to invoke Saddam's violations of "the will of the international community" as casus belli. That's the Clintonistas' line; the Bush team has no qualms about abrogating nuclear arms control treaties, biological weapons conventions, torpedoing the International Criminal Court, not signing global warming protocols, and taking a hard line on the legality of those Guantanamo cages. Most of those conventions and documents admittedly deserve to be ignored or torn, but from the purely legal point of view, the readiness to attack Iraq without a Security Council mandate represents a violation of international law of the highest order.

More worrying is the fact that the forthcoming war is also a violation of the Constitution of the United States. President Bush may have been told by his unnamed "top legal advisers" that he does not need to secure the prior approval of Congress before launching a full-scale war on Iraq, but their claim is based on the assertion that the original Security Council resolution that paved the way for the Gulf War back in 1991 remains in full legal force—but that claim is not accepted by the Security Council itself! It is additionally galling that the least UN-friendly president in US history deems it necessary to protect his warlike designs from the Congress by pretending that he is legally justified, and bound, by the UN Security Council resolutions.

When the War Party encounters legal and rational obstacles it cannot answer, it resorts to the old reductio ad Hitlerum, to dehumanization and demonization: Saddam is evil, so evil in fact that no arguments are needed, and whoever insists on getting them is no better than he. Yes, Saddam is Hitler—forget Milosevic and Noriega (and let's please forget the unapprehended Ossama!)—and if we don't act decisively now . . . Munich . . . much higher price later . . . blah, blah. But this trick has been played once too often, and Condoleeza Rice's "moral case" for attacking Iraq has misfired. Even the neocons realize that it would be potentially tricky to insist on the Wilsonian-"moralist" line, in view of the distinctly unsavory nature of so many regimes whose support they regard as essential to the neoimperial project. Turkey, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and, yes, Israel, with countless skeletons in their cupboards, only show that, to an ideologue, "morality" is no longer treated as a function of actual behavior. It is situational, it reflects the place of the actor within the ideological system: if Iraq kills Kurds, it gets bombed; if Turkey kills Kurds, it is OK, or at least we'll keep quiet about it. If Saddam violates human rights, he is a monster; if the Islamo-fascist freak regime in Riyaadh does so, endemically and relentlessly, it is a topic unfit to broach when its Ambassador comes to the President's Texas ranch.

In the end we are left with the uncomfortable realization that the US government wants to attack Iraq because it can do so, because it expects to be able to do so with relative impunity, and because within the Administration there are people who have vested interests and their own geopolitical and emotional agendas that have nothing to do with the national interest of the United States. The ultimate reason for attacking Saddam is the same as Sir Edmund Hillary's reason for climbing the Everest: because it's there. It is about more than Iraqi oil and Israeli security; it is about the future of the world. Years before the neocons came to power, back in 1996, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan gloated in what they called "benevolent global hegemony." They demanded indefinite and massive military build-ups, unconnected to any identifiable military threat, and for 'citizen involvement,' in effect, militarization of the populace. Their vision of Pax Americana was summarized in their exultation that we have never lived in a world more conducive to [our] fundamental interests in a liberal international order, the spread of freedom and democratic governance, [and] an international economic system of free-market capitalism and free trade. They did not tell us how the US would preserve the traditional moral fabric, social structure and economic interests of its own people—what most Americans still mean by 'national interests'—because they are ultimately in the business of altering minds and culture, not preserving them.

The same triumphalist spirit was in evidence when Vice-President Cheney, addressing a VFW convention in Nashville at the end of August, vowed that the Bush administration "won't look away and hope for the best," and predicted that Saddam's removal would be greeted with joy inside Iraq, and would help the spread of democracy across the entire Arab world. This is pure rhetoric, spiced with wishful thinking. There is no strategic vision, no cost-benefit analysis, no consideration of risks, and no definition of victory. This is frivolity on par with the behavior of Europe's leading statesmen in July 1914. It remains unchallenged, amidst the bipartisan War Party's near-monopoly on U.S. media commentary, making America hardly more open to meaningful debate than its chief adversary was during the Cold War. What had started, on October 2001, as a legitimate (although not fully legal) military response to the terrorist outrage of 9-11 has degenerated into a hubristic power-play. Small wonder that only one foreign government in the world fully supports what Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney & Co want (and yes, you have guessed which one it is).

There are other reasons for the war, in addition to the "passionate attachment," all of them equally bad: to hide the fact that Afghanistan is a costly failure, to keep the Administration's many arms industry buddies busy in these lean economic times, but above all to satisfy the hubristic longings of the neoconservative cabal that now possesses Bush's ear, soul, heart, and tongue. They give the President ever more menacing scripts to read, and then claim that we have to attack Iraq because now we were painted into the corner, since the White House rhetoric no longer allows for a "humiliating" retreat.

These puppet masters are America's true enemy. They are far greater threat to the constitutional order, identity, and way of life of the United States than Saddam will ever be. They are in pursuit of Power for its own sake—thus sinning against God and man—and history teaches us that, in the end, America will be destroyed if its rulers are allowed to proceed with their mad quest. Given the choice, the people of this country would never opt for it, but it is unclear how they can resist it, in this age of 'managed mass democracy.' The War Party may even prevail, for now, and enter Baghdad in triumph; but before long there will be new excitement, new opportunities, a new Hitler. In the end the misused power will inevitably generate countervailing power—a grand coalition containing many current "allies"—after the world has become a poorer, nastier, less free, and far less populous place.

(Nevertheless, he would not use them against a foe armed with nuclear weapons: brutal dictators are realists, and therefore devoid of suicidal tendencies.)

Earth to bonehead - Saddam has fired scuds at a nearby nation that has nuclear weapons. That nation is Israel.

Additionally, Saddam is not the entire problem within Iraq. The problem was the Baath Marxist Socialist Party which gave Saddam the ability to assume dictatorial power. That party game into power by killing its legitimate opposition within the previous goverment.

The paleo cons were the people who took the existence of the Soviet Union for granted and for all their rhetoric of opposing the expansion of Communism, seemed resigned to the fact nothing could be done to bring the Evil Empire down. Their present rhetoric on Iraq betrays their lack of appreciation for America's strengths and ability to make the world a safer place for American interests and democracy. Ronald Reagan elected to go with us sullied neo-cons and went on to win the Cold War. George W. Bush has our ear on Iraq and after our little adventure in Baghdad is over the Middle East will never be the same again. In a word its time to go and kick our enemies ass!!!

Nonsense. Pat Buchanan was one of the loudest voices calling for concrete action to bring down communism. He was also the one of the biggest oppenents of Detante within the Nixon Administration.

The ideologues pushing Detante were the country-club/Rockafellar Republicans, like Bush I, who are not to be confused with Paleocons.

Some are inspired by the ideology of "idealistic" globalism, constructed upon the notion of America's exceptionalism: the United States is a proposition nation, founded upon the values of equality, human rights, tolerance, etc, etc; it is therefore unique, it is the "indispensable nation," a light to the world, whether the world wants it or not. "Humanitarian bombing" was those people's trademark, the Balkans their favorite playing field, and they thrived under Bill Clinton. They saw America as the ultimate arbitrator of domestic evolutions all over the world; to them foreign policy equated social policy on a global scale, and "nation-building" abroad was the equivalent of busing and affirmative action at home.

Under President George W. Bush the "other people" in the foreign policy establishment are guided by globalism's twin brother—by the neoconservative ideology that seeks and justifies unabashed American hegemony. Both strains strikingly analogous to their doctrinaire Marxist roots, and both are deeply inimical to the traditions and values of the American Republic. Their relentless pursuit of an American Empire overseas is coupled by their deliberate domestic transformation of the United States' federal government into a Leviathan unbound by constitutional restraints.

This is an example of the kind of feverish writing that turns people off "paleoconservatism." The habit of calling everyone who disagrees with oneself "Marxist" is a sign that one doesn't have very strong arguments. As with leftists calling people fascist, the effect is to wear out the meaning of the word. When people indulge in this "everybody is a Marxist but us" it's a sign that they've stopped thinking and making distinctions in favor of just emoting.

It may be that the traditions of the Republic have been lost or are being lost. But I don't trust Chronicles to really tell me what those traditions are. Washington crushed the Whiskey rebellion. Adams fought a "Quasi-War" with France and brought the war home with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson struck at the Barbary Pirates without a declaration of war, and strangled our own shipping with the Embargo. Madison went to war with Britain, in part because the "War Hawks" wanted Canada. Monroe cast two continents under our imperial "protection." I'm not saying that we should be ashamed of our history. And I'm not saying that nothing has changed over two centuries, or that we should fight this war. I'm just saying that "Chronicles" has a simplistic and distorted view of history and of the realities of international relations. It's emotionally satisfying, but disproven by historical experience.

Thank you for posting this article. Srdja Trifkovic is like a long drink of cool, clear water after a desperate ride across a wasteland.

The fact that this brilliant, well-reasoned, well-written, non-hysterical article is featured in a marginal American publication--- Chronicles Magazine-is damning evidence of the brutal monoculturalism of America's Ruling Elite; of the totalitarian mindset of the Last Remaining Superpower on Earth--the myth of the "far right" and the "far left" notwithstanding.

We have become what we beheld in the Cold War.

But thanks again for the refreshing drink....

"...This is an example of the kind of feverish writing that turns people off "paleoconservatism." The habit of calling everyone who disagrees with oneself "Marxist" is a sign that one doesn't have very strong arguments. As with leftists calling people fascist, the effect is to wear out the meaning of the word. When people indulge in this "everybody is a Marxist but us" it's a sign that they've stopped thinking and making distinctions in favor of just emoting....

This is a less-than-cheap critique. I wonder why you chose to distill a long, melancholy, well-written article into a tiny feverish red cape to wave before the inevitable charging bulls on this forum?

Are you contending that the root of the neo-conservatism is NOT marxism?

And then--even cheaper than the cheapest bargain-basement shot--you ream the source of the article. Aren't you the least bit concerned that a fine, entirely admissable argument like this finds no other outlet in they-hate-us-because-we-are-so-free America than The Chronicles?

The Leftists hate us because we accept reality for what it is and while we accept government has a role to play in taking care of society's needy, we don't accept that it has to be a cradle to grave one. As we've found a government's that too big is inefficient and a government that's overly intrusive is lacking in compassion. That's why we want the welfare state limited and have private charities and individuals do what government should refrain from doing so people that really need help are truly helped. The difference between liberals and neo-cons is liberals have faith in government whereas we have faith in people.

Assyrian Christians have never been targeted by the government to my knowledge, if you have evidence, please post (I do know about the hanging of Jews as "Zionist Agents," Iraqi tolerance not extending to Jews). Again, do you want a stable secular regime, an islamist republic, or a puppet regime that would fall like a house of cards once the US Military pulled out.

Personally, if you want to see the main sponsor of terrorism, simply take a look at our "friends" in their Kingdom in the middle of the Arabian peninsula. Of course we can never touch them, unless we want oil to go to $100 a gallon at the tank.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.