tucker342
03-25-2003, 12:15 AM
I was wondering what people thought of this perspective in the local paper
http://www.press-citizen.com/opinion/032303perspective.htm
War with Iraq: The beginning of new American empire?
‘The Project for the New American Century is just thinly veiled imperialism’
By Resa Aslan
In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered the following justifications for the war against Iraq:
• Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction against numerous U.N. resolutions requiring it to disarm
• Saddam Hussein's contempt for international standards of human rights
• The Iraqi president's ties to terrorist organizations in general and to al-Qaida in particular
Many critics of the administration, both here and abroad, have noted the massive inconsistencies in Bush's argument for war, however.
Inconsistencies
First, while Iraq may be concealing biological and chemical weapons, they are neither an immediate threat to the United States (especially while U.N. weapons inspectors are combing through the country), nor even the greatest obstacle to global peace. There are far more dangerous and far more unstable countries that possess far greater weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, for instance, not only has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the United States, but has even threatened to do so.
Secondly, while Hussein's human rights violations may be a casus belli, we must remember that some of the most egregious violators of human rights receive an enormous amount of American financial and military aid.
The Saudi family runs a Taliban-like reg-ime in Saudi Arabia, yet sells the United States some 60 percent of our foreign oil. Egypt, which has used a nearly permanent application of its Emergency Laws over the past 30 years to detain, torture and execute political opponents and democratic activists, receives more than $2 billion a year of American taxpayer money. Israel, in violation of countless U.N. resolutions against the illegal settlement activity in the occupied territories, receives more than $3 billion a year. The point is that while the issue of human rights is certainly important, it is being unequally applied in U.S. foreign policy.
This brings us to the linchpin in the administration's argument for war: Iraq's support of terrorism. Despite that the CIA and British Intelligence have both stated there exists no evidence of a link between Hussein and bin-Laden, despite that al-Qaida and the Baath Party are fierce ideological enemies and bin-Laden himself has called Hussein an infidel who must be overthrown, despite that since Sept. 11 some 170 al-Qaida arrests have taken place in Europe and Middle East, none with any ties to Iraq, the president has referred to Iraq's secular armed forces as "Saddam's holy warriors" and insisted that an attack on Iraq is "the next logical step in the fight against terrorism."
Astounding justification
The inconsistencies in the Bush argument have led to an even more astounding justification for military strikes against Baghdad, presented by Mr. Bush in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute: that the toppling of Hussein could bring about a wholesale change for the better in the political, cultural and economic climate of the Middle East. According to Bush advisor Fouad Ajami, Iraq only would be the starting point of a reformist project to transform the Arab landscape.
Here is what that project would look like: A post-Hussein government in Iraq not only will be a model of democracy for the rest of the Middle East, but it will push the reform movement in Iran to rise up against the tiny clerical minority that rules the country. The inevitable regime change in Iran will force it to end its support for "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah, whose political role in Lebanon and Syria will be dramatically reduced. Lebanon will become a full-fledged ally of the United States, while Syria, now surrounded by the pro-American forces, would be pressured to stop its support of Hamas and Islamic jihad on its way to its own democratic regime change.
With its regional allies bowing to American pressure, the Palestinian Authority would have no choice but to renounce terrorism, reform democratically and surrender to peace with Israel (most likely on Israel's terms). Best of all, with Iraq's massive oil reserves under American control, Saudi Arabia no longer would be the United States' only major source of oil, putting an end to what has been an increasingly uncomfortable relationship between the two countries.
There is no question Saddam Hussein is a madman who should be removed from power. I can think of few intelligent people who would disagree with that proposition. But what the president is now suggesting is no longer simply regime change or Iraqi disarmament or even "nation building." What Richard Cheney, Donald Rums-feld, Paul Wolfowitz and other ultra-conservatives are calling "The Project for the New American Century," is a not just a new kind of foreign policy but a radical imperialist ideology.
The problem with this vision, however, is that it is predicated on an ignorance of history and a misguided perception of America's image in the Middle East. It is foolish to think that the power vacuums in the region will be naturally filled by liberal, democratic elements open to American interests. It is far more likely that anti-Americanism and terrorism will further destabilize the region, and rather than opening their arms to an Amer-ican, secular, forced democracy, the people of the Middle East will do what they did the last time they were confronted with this kind of "Civilizing Mission" (a.k.a. colonialism): re-spond with radical and violent fundamentalism.
Yet, the president seems oblivious to the consequences of his new imperialist ideology.
Unconcerned with U.N.
It is no wonder, then, he is unconcerned with the future of multinationalist organizations like the United Nations. Although the president initially was praised for taking the case against Hussein to the Security Council, his speech to the United Nations amounted to little more than blackmail when he compared the organization to the defunct and ineffectual League of Nations and warned the council to either support his war plans or risk the "danger of irrelevance" when the United States goes to war anyway.
The administration followed this threat by sending diplomats to Security Council members - poor countries like Angola, Cameroon, and Chile - warning them of "dire consequences" if they did not vote with the United States for war. The truth is the United Nations and its Security Council never were relevant in Bush's mind.
This is how imperialism begins: first with the usurping of multilateral organizations with the unilateralist interests of a single hyper-power; then the militarization of that foreign policy, and finally with a military presence in hostile regions.
Welcome to the New American Century.
Resa Aslan teaches religion and politics in the Middle East at the University of Iowa.
http://www.press-citizen.com/opinion/032303perspective.htm
War with Iraq: The beginning of new American empire?
‘The Project for the New American Century is just thinly veiled imperialism’
By Resa Aslan
In his State of the Union address, President Bush offered the following justifications for the war against Iraq:
• Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction against numerous U.N. resolutions requiring it to disarm
• Saddam Hussein's contempt for international standards of human rights
• The Iraqi president's ties to terrorist organizations in general and to al-Qaida in particular
Many critics of the administration, both here and abroad, have noted the massive inconsistencies in Bush's argument for war, however.
Inconsistencies
First, while Iraq may be concealing biological and chemical weapons, they are neither an immediate threat to the United States (especially while U.N. weapons inspectors are combing through the country), nor even the greatest obstacle to global peace. There are far more dangerous and far more unstable countries that possess far greater weapons of mass destruction. North Korea, for instance, not only has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the United States, but has even threatened to do so.
Secondly, while Hussein's human rights violations may be a casus belli, we must remember that some of the most egregious violators of human rights receive an enormous amount of American financial and military aid.
The Saudi family runs a Taliban-like reg-ime in Saudi Arabia, yet sells the United States some 60 percent of our foreign oil. Egypt, which has used a nearly permanent application of its Emergency Laws over the past 30 years to detain, torture and execute political opponents and democratic activists, receives more than $2 billion a year of American taxpayer money. Israel, in violation of countless U.N. resolutions against the illegal settlement activity in the occupied territories, receives more than $3 billion a year. The point is that while the issue of human rights is certainly important, it is being unequally applied in U.S. foreign policy.
This brings us to the linchpin in the administration's argument for war: Iraq's support of terrorism. Despite that the CIA and British Intelligence have both stated there exists no evidence of a link between Hussein and bin-Laden, despite that al-Qaida and the Baath Party are fierce ideological enemies and bin-Laden himself has called Hussein an infidel who must be overthrown, despite that since Sept. 11 some 170 al-Qaida arrests have taken place in Europe and Middle East, none with any ties to Iraq, the president has referred to Iraq's secular armed forces as "Saddam's holy warriors" and insisted that an attack on Iraq is "the next logical step in the fight against terrorism."
Astounding justification
The inconsistencies in the Bush argument have led to an even more astounding justification for military strikes against Baghdad, presented by Mr. Bush in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute: that the toppling of Hussein could bring about a wholesale change for the better in the political, cultural and economic climate of the Middle East. According to Bush advisor Fouad Ajami, Iraq only would be the starting point of a reformist project to transform the Arab landscape.
Here is what that project would look like: A post-Hussein government in Iraq not only will be a model of democracy for the rest of the Middle East, but it will push the reform movement in Iran to rise up against the tiny clerical minority that rules the country. The inevitable regime change in Iran will force it to end its support for "terrorist" groups like Hezbollah, whose political role in Lebanon and Syria will be dramatically reduced. Lebanon will become a full-fledged ally of the United States, while Syria, now surrounded by the pro-American forces, would be pressured to stop its support of Hamas and Islamic jihad on its way to its own democratic regime change.
With its regional allies bowing to American pressure, the Palestinian Authority would have no choice but to renounce terrorism, reform democratically and surrender to peace with Israel (most likely on Israel's terms). Best of all, with Iraq's massive oil reserves under American control, Saudi Arabia no longer would be the United States' only major source of oil, putting an end to what has been an increasingly uncomfortable relationship between the two countries.
There is no question Saddam Hussein is a madman who should be removed from power. I can think of few intelligent people who would disagree with that proposition. But what the president is now suggesting is no longer simply regime change or Iraqi disarmament or even "nation building." What Richard Cheney, Donald Rums-feld, Paul Wolfowitz and other ultra-conservatives are calling "The Project for the New American Century," is a not just a new kind of foreign policy but a radical imperialist ideology.
The problem with this vision, however, is that it is predicated on an ignorance of history and a misguided perception of America's image in the Middle East. It is foolish to think that the power vacuums in the region will be naturally filled by liberal, democratic elements open to American interests. It is far more likely that anti-Americanism and terrorism will further destabilize the region, and rather than opening their arms to an Amer-ican, secular, forced democracy, the people of the Middle East will do what they did the last time they were confronted with this kind of "Civilizing Mission" (a.k.a. colonialism): re-spond with radical and violent fundamentalism.
Yet, the president seems oblivious to the consequences of his new imperialist ideology.
Unconcerned with U.N.
It is no wonder, then, he is unconcerned with the future of multinationalist organizations like the United Nations. Although the president initially was praised for taking the case against Hussein to the Security Council, his speech to the United Nations amounted to little more than blackmail when he compared the organization to the defunct and ineffectual League of Nations and warned the council to either support his war plans or risk the "danger of irrelevance" when the United States goes to war anyway.
The administration followed this threat by sending diplomats to Security Council members - poor countries like Angola, Cameroon, and Chile - warning them of "dire consequences" if they did not vote with the United States for war. The truth is the United Nations and its Security Council never were relevant in Bush's mind.
This is how imperialism begins: first with the usurping of multilateral organizations with the unilateralist interests of a single hyper-power; then the militarization of that foreign policy, and finally with a military presence in hostile regions.
Welcome to the New American Century.
Resa Aslan teaches religion and politics in the Middle East at the University of Iowa.