Originally Posted by
Mike Alexander '59
The objective now seems to have been installation of a democratic government in Iraq from the very start. Perhaps the choice of "Iraqi Freedom" as the name of the operation (compare to "Desert Storm") means something. In other words, Bush did buy into the progressive vision on terrorism--a radical departure from his former conservative views.
Of course the means selected to advance this progressive goal are necessarily more muscular than what self-described (i.e. leftist) progressives would favor. A Republican is going to use force (a hard image) in pursuit of a progressive goal to counter the squishy image of progressivism.
As y'all should have figured by now, my perspective is of a long term evolution in human culture. Authoritarian, agricultural, religious, conservative cultures are transforming into democratic, industrial, secular progressive. This process has been slow and painful. In the West, the process might have started with the Protestant / Catholic conflict. The next phase was more revolutionary, with the English and American Civil Wars, the American and French Revolutions. There was then some imperialistic wars, from the Napoleonic through World War I, as the old royalist governments slowly lost influence to the more modern capitalist / democratic style. World War II saw fascist governments become unfashionable. The Cold War muted the power of Communism.
It seems clear we are in another phase shift. Communism was 'defeated' with a policy of containment. The Communists had the potential to launch military offensives, either overtly with the Soviet Army crashing into Europe, or through proxy revolutions. The current 'foes' of democracy, not yet assimilated (resistance is futile, you will be assimilated) have no similar capability. As the Cold War was stetted through proxy wars and economic competition, it seems unlikely that the next level of conflict can be settled on a conventional battlefield with front lines, artillery, tanks and air support.
There seem to be two fronts in the new conflict. The first is Islam. Of the various 'civilizations,' Islam has to date resisted Western / Industrial influence as effectively as any. They have had a recent religious awakening. They have not yet had a crisis to implement the new values of the awakening. Their governments and economies are still autocratic and agricultural. This cannot be sustained. They must in time transform themselves. The autocratic regimes have little motivation to phase themselves out of power.
The second front is ethnic. In many parts of the world, rich ethnic and / or religious minorities with political and/or economic clout dominate poor native minorities. Potentially, capitalism emperors the dominant minority, while democracy empowers the oppressed majority. This tension takes many forms. Saddam's Sunni minority just didn't bother with democracy. Still, in places like Somalia, the Balkans, East Timor, and the Sudan, such conflicts have caused meltdowns. We have seen ethnic cleansing, genocide, organized rape, and politically induced famine.
The Islamic and ethnic fronts are not totally unrelated, but any analysis needs both perspectives.
Clinton attempted to address the ethnic front. He was building towards an international consensus that when major human rights violations generate a collapse, international intervention is proper. His vision wasn't too far from the Cold War 'containment' policy. He wasn't looking to actively intervene in 3rd world countries, to force progress aggressively, but he would not tolerate crimes against humanity. In the long term, a containment policy with intervention only if society totally breaks down seems a proper response to the ethnic front.
Bush 43 is more focused towards the Islamic front. Even before the September 11th attacks, the New American Century report advocated a shift in American military emphasis towards stabilizing the Middle East along terms favorable to the United States. I can best make sense of the policy if I assume the oil is important. A shift from a fossil fuel economy to a post fossil future cannot occur without a stable Middle East friendly towards the developed countries. However, Bush 43 can't say that. He can't say "We need to install a puppet regime that will sell oil cheap on the dollar." He can talk about spreading democracy and containing WMDs. Still, there is talk, and there is action. Did the army have orders to search for and secure weapons, to establish peace and security, or to guard the oil fields?
To me, sending in an army to transform a culture is problematic. One cannot teach ethnic acceptance at bayonet point. I would consider the Yankee's attempt to reconstruct the South after the US Civil War as a normal result. They Yankees ended up going home with the job not half done. Yes, the US did convince the Germans and Japanese that war of aggression is a bad idea, but that was done more during the fighting than after.
To me, the question is whether use of military force as a tool for seeking economic and political advantage is cost effective. The US is spending far more on the capability to project force than anyone else. Can this force be used in a constructive and/or profitable way, or is it only apt to attract responses similar to 9.11? Should we lean towards containment, leaving the unassimilated autocratic regimes alone if at all possible, or does a more aggressive unilateral preemptive posture make sense. We can clearly win conventional wars against countries much smaller than we are, but occupying such countries takes our entire military potential, and the difficulty in transforming such countries must not be underestimated.
Which gets me back to the question as to whether Bush is progressive. I'm dubious. Radical, maybe. He is implementing a foreign policy which is a distinct break from the past. He is talking a 'progressive' game, in advocating democracy. Alas, I believe this progressive goal is a false mask for old fashioned use of military force to acquire an economic zone of influence. This isn't progressive, but down right reactionary.
But more worrisome is an underlying theme that 'progressive' means 'soft.' 'Progressive' means taking the establishment down a notch, spreading the wealth and power better with the downtrodden. Fourth Turnings are times for progressives, but they are never soft. It is never easy.
Re: What now in Iraq?
).
