Wednesday, June 29, 2005

President "Woodrow Wilson" Bush

The justification for our invasion of, and continued presence in, Iraq appears to have finally morphed into a well-developed argument.... The latest formulation fuses the neoconservative Middle East strategy with the goals of the larger "War on Terror." For years, the neocons have been pushing this Wilsonian idea that a free and democratized Middle East equals a stable, peaceful, and, most importantly, US-friendly Middle East. Thus, they argue, the United States has a moral obligation to spread (by force if necessary) the promise of liberty and self-rule to the region and, at the same time, pick up some good will along the way.

Still, the opponents of this view, myself included, have viewed such imperialistic endeavors with a skeptical eye - asserting that there are countries, even entire regions, around the world where democracy and freedom are little more than hopeful fantasies. So the argument goes, how can we arbitrarily pick this single region?? It must be the oil, right? I may be wrong, but it's hard to believe that even Bush's biggest critics think this whole to-do is over oil. Regardless, such conspiratorial claims have received more credence than they properly deserve precisely because of the President's failure to effectively explain just why Iraq is so unique. Consider the list. Until recently, the Bush administration has clumsily argued that the Iraqi invasion was necessitated to provide humanitarian relief to those living under Saddam's oppressive thumb; to neutralize his ability to produce and/or use WMD's; and, ultimately, to remove the bully from his pulpit. Despite the noble intentions associated with each of the aforementioned motivations, each explanation seemed overly rationalized and left the administration vulnerable to criticism from all sides. Many still wondered, "What are they up to?"

As I said, the failure can be traced to President's hodgepodge, ever-shifting rationale for war which seemed to skimp on the fundamental questions: why us, why there, why now? Afterall, this is quinticentially the nation-building model that G.W. repeatedly disclaimed prior to the 2000 election. But, as they say, 9/11 changed everything. Blah, blah, blah. So, it changed everything. Well, that doesn't explain why it took the administration three years to articulate (or perhaps, formulate is a better description) a winning argument for why Iraq should be considered public enemy #1. That is, until now. Based on Tuesday's speech, it is clear that the administration's justification for our Iraqi-involvement has matured, if not formally evolved. The President's explanation last night seems to shore up the shortcomings that once riddled his Iraqi policy and provided so much fodder for his critics (including me).

The Bush doctrine of preemptively rooting out terror before it strikes (the grand, Orwellian, "War on Terror") provides an articulable basis (pretextual or not) to forcibly democratize the Middle East while still ignoring other countries that continue to carry the yoke of oppression. I admit, it does seem like the region is strangely semi-saturated with those that find honor in strapping a bomb to themselves just to take down a couple infidels. But, the kicker is the link to the neocon theory that once the terrorists are neutralized and democracy takes hold, the resulting stability will necessarily translate into US security. Applying the wonkish-neocon policy pursuits to the Iraq war and the overall War on Terror allows the President to wear the dual hat of liberator - one who will plant the seed of freedom and democracy in the liberty-starved region, and protector - one from whom US security will flow once the reformed-Middle East embraces the freedom that we "provide." So, the theory goes, when this whole experiment is over, all the boys and girls that we "liberate" from Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon et. al. are certain to become our best-buds -- just like the French....

Whether you agree with these ends or not, this is a much more powerful argument that the administration should have vocalized from day one.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home