Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 07/10/2003 6:36:26 AM PDT by Pokey78
For a moment in early May, American neoconservatives thought they had died and gone to heaven, so much did Bahgdad seem to them to resemble paradise. Their vision of an America that would shed its paper-tiger hesitation and boldly use its overwhelming military power to crush tyrannical regimes and reshape the world for decades to come by establishing American-style democracies in their place seemed well on its way to realisation. As the months have passed since then, however, the whole project is increasingly foundering on a very large rock — the apparent absence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.
In the United States, as in the United Kingdom, the main explanation given to the public for the necessity of going to war with Iraq was the imminent threat of WMD and the possibility that Saddam’s alleged close ties to terrorists could result in al-Qa’eda obtaining such weapons. Now that the weapons are proving hard to find, the under-secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives have begun to argue that the threat of WMD was only one of a number of reasons for the war and not necessarily the most important one. It was really only used, he said, because it was the one on which there was broadest consensus in the Washington bureaucracy.
While this has the virtue of possibly being true, it is not what the American public was told at the time. It is important to recall that before the war American public opinion was fairly evenly divided on the question of supporting an attack on Iraq. Had the President told the public that WMD might be a threat, but his intelligence on this wasn’t entirely clear, but not to worry because there were lots of other good reasons for going to war, it is highly unlikely that he would have had enough public support to go ahead with the attack.
In the initial flush of victory, the failure immediately to find the WMD did not seem to be a serious problem. The brutal dictator Saddam was gone, Americans thought they were being greeted as liberators by a grateful Iraqi populace, the casualty rate was negligible, and the vaunted Arab Street had not erupted. Indeed, it seemed to have a new respect for America and its willingness to use its power. The new American doctrine of preventive and pre-emptive war seemed vindicated as Americans basked in the glory of their martial success and technological superiority. Reconstruction of the world along American lines seemed so easy that neoconservative policy-makers were already training their sights on new targets such as Iran and North Korea.
The dawning realisation that the war was the easy part and that the aftermath is likely to be long, painful and costly has changed much of that euphoric sentiment. More importantly, the prospect of a continuing war of attrition with a steady stream of American casualties and demands for a huge rebuilding commitment to a significantly hostile territory is forcing attention back to the real reasons for the war. It was one thing for the President to ask Americans to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way to ward off the threat of WMD, but if the threat was and is non-existent, how does the government explain to the public why it is putting their young people in danger? This nagging question is sparking the beginnings of what could be a profound debate as both Republican and Democratic senators such as Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Joe Biden of Delaware, along with some of the Democratic presidential candidates, have begun to ask fundamental questions about America’s role in Iraq and its future role in the world. In particular, Hagel and Biden have urged bringing the United Nations and additional allies into the effort to rebuild Iraq. But this raises several key issues.
The first is the doctrine of pre-emptive war and its corollary notion that, in the words of the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, ‘the mission determines the coalition’. If pre-emptive war is to be a credible strategy, it must be based on near faultless intelligence. In its recent efforts to beef up the forces in Iraq, the United States has been requesting increased deployments from its coalition of the willing and finding an astonishing amount of unwillingness. Yet this should not be surprising. No one will ever be interested in joining a coalition based on a false premise and thus destined to face unexpected difficulties.
Indeed, the fundamental ability of the United States to carry out an effective foreign policy may have been severely compromised if it turns out to be the case that the reasons for the war were not as stated. On the one hand, if the United States can go to war on the basis of a false claim of a threat, why can’t others such as India or Pakistan or China, to name only a few, do likewise? On the other hand, who will believe the United States in the future, even if its claim of a threat is real? And who will join the next coalition of the willing, even if it is justified and needed?
The second, and perhaps more important, issue is that of the nature of American democracy itself. It is astounding how easily the US Congress authorises presidents to use military force on the basis of flimsy claims of threat. In the wake of what turned out to be a non-existent attack on US naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf resolution that turned the Vietnam conflict into full-scale war. Now that a similar resolution has been passed in the case of Iraq, on the basis of similarly non-existent threats, the war-making powers of the Congress and the President are up for debate.
The future of the Bush administration could well be at stake. Having criticised President Clinton severely for moral lapses and dishonesty and played the card of born-again Christianity, Bush must be seen to be absolutely honest with the American public. Indeed, much of his political appeal derives from his black-and-white, good-guy, bad-guy Texas rhetoric. If that turns out to be false, he is likely to be hoist with his own petard.
The first signs of Bush’s potential vulnerability are becoming apparent. If the situation in Iraq continues, with a steady stream of US casualties, no apparent end in sight and no good explanation of why we are there, and if the US economy remains sluggish with rising unemployment, Bush could be in deep trouble. Indeed, the parallels with his father’s situation in 1992 are striking. Then the senior Bush appeared unbeatable, so much so that the major Democratic candidates stayed out of the race. But a little known Arkansas governor sensed the feet of clay and went for the gold. This time a little-known Vermont governor, Howard Dean, also sees possible feet of clay and is running for the gold. He has charisma on the stump and a powerful fundraising machine. More importantly, unlike the other Democratic candidates who have supported Bush on the war or kept silent, he has clearly defined himself as the anti-unilateralist and the anti-pre-emptive war candidate. Few give him a chance at the moment. But then, no one thought Bill Clinton could win either.
Clyde Prestowitz is president of the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington, DC. He was a US trade negotiator and counsellor to the secretary of commerce in the Reagan administration. He is author of Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions.
"A conservative's sober warning of the dangers of unilateralism and the temptations of empire." -Joseph Nye, author of The Paradox of American Power
"Clyde Prestowitz, in Rogue Nation, not only dares to ask timely questions that most do not dare to ask, but, more daring still, he even answers them." -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser, author of The Grand Chessboard
"This is a most provocative, timely, and interesting book. It will undoubtedly promote a real and very necessary debate on America's relations with the world." -Peter Sutherland, Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, former Director General, World Trade Organization
"This is a provocative and insightful book and a must read for international business leaders." -Craig Barrett, CEO, Intel Corp.
"Clyde Prestowitz lucidly addresses a crucial issue: Will the United States succumb to the temptation of changing roles from sole superpower working with partners to the world's imperial power in search of followers? Will the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers lead to the dismantling of the twin pillars of the post World War II transatlantic relationship, NATO and the indispensable partnership between the US and the EU, the new Europe? Prestowitz convincingly illustrates why such a course must be avoided at all cost." -Gunther Burghardt, European Union Ambassador to the United States
"In Rogue Nation, Prestowitz says what Latin America has been feeling for so long: the United States needs to pay more attention to the global ramifications of its actions." -Rubens Antonio Barbosa, Brazilian Ambassador to the United States
"Clyde Prestowitz has written a book that gets to the core reason for the angst that afflicts America's friends today: the increasing appearance of dissonance between her principled professions and her flawed practice. Prestowitz brilliantly makes clear the many ways in which American leadership has reduced her image worldwide into one of a 'rogue nation.' This is arguably the most important book on the most important issue before us today." -Jagdish Bhagwati, Columbia University
"Clyde Prestowitz provides an insightful analysis of how America is disappointing the world by failing to fulfil its own values, by preaching rather than listening, and by acting against, rather than with, the rest of the world. At this critical time in America's relations with the Muslim world, Rogue Nation is essential reading, especially for Washington's leaders." -Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia
"Rogue Nation provides a compelling analysis of the current geopolitical situation and America's role in the world. With insight gained from years of living and working abroad, Prestowitz explains how many across the globe feel disappointed and betrayed by an America that seems to be turning from the international standards it has done so much to help create over the past fifty years." -George Soros
"Clyde Prestowitz makes an authoritative contribution to the debate about the United States' role in the international system, and a passionate defense of its legacy of fostering international institutions. Rogue Nation is an indispensable contribution to the present debate." -Etienne Davignon, Vice-Chairman, Belgian General Society, former Vice-President of the European Commission
"Clyde Prestowitz's timely, interesting and provocative account cannot fail to stimulate a lively debate." -Pascal Lamy, EU Trade Commissione
"Clyde Prestowitz's theme could not be more topical or more important: how does the world's only superpower see its role in the modern world? He throws a personal light on why so many of America's greatest admirers-among whom I count myself-have been concerned about the answer." -Chris Patten, EU Commissioner for External Relation
"This is a fascinating big picture look at America and its place in the world. This should help provoke the kind of discussion that we have long needed." -General Wesley Clark
"This is a brave book that should be read by all who care about America's success. A man of impeccable conservative credentials, Clyde Prestowitz directly challenges a new orthodoxy on the right-that the U.S. should aggressively pursue its own interests regardless of what others may think. No one writes with more authority and love of country." -David Gergen, Director of the Center for Public Leadership, Harvard University, former White House advisor to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.
"This volume is a timely, bold, and penetrating account of American foreign policy under Bush. It presents powerful liberal alternatives to moral absolutism, hegemonic unlilateralism, and offensive realism with rich cross-cultural insights. This is the essential reading for Americans and non-Americans alike who are interested in the future fate of the U.S. and the world." -Chung-in Moon, Dean of the Graduate School of International Studies, Yonsei University
"What Clyde Prestowitz has said so constructively needs saying and should be factored in to deliberations of our nation's top leaders." -Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, former Ambassador to China
Once again, he never said it was imminent. He said we needed to act before the threat was imminent, because in all likelyhood these people would not be calling and telling us when they were going to strike
he (Dean) has clearly defined himself as the anti-unilateralist
Yep, he's all for one world gov't
Bah, humbug
Anyone objectively valuing that as good advice has to then ask the question: how did the world order, and threats thereto, change after 9/11 (what did 9/11 mean?) and what actions were our foreign friends willing to take on the basis of that analysis?
The answer, from France, Germany, Belgium, etc, was "nothing". Instead they saw 9/11 as an opportunity for triangulation between the US and its enemies, to advance their own prospects and stature at the expense of the US.
So Prestowitz's analysis is fatally flawed.
I am still not exactly sure what a 'neoconservative' is supposed to be, but if I am one, I think I am capable of determining my own opinion of what Bahgdad resembles. And it has never been paradise...JFK
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.