| |
Vulnerability fears and the hubris of
victory
By Ehsan Ahrari
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia - The continued fear of
renewed terrorist incidents inside the United States and
the hubris of a victory in Iraq are two factors that
will have lasting effects on this country in its role as
a world leader.
The United States' leadership
role is entirely uncontested in the realms of military
prowess and economic strength. But then there is also
its leadership role as a moralistic force, and a
champion of democracy and human rights. It is
essentially in the pursuit of these last two objectives
that the current administration decided to invade Iraq,
or at least that was the promise that President George W
Bush made to the international community. For those
doubting Thomases of the world, let me suggest that they
read Bush's National Security Strategy of September
2002.
But one cannot really believe Bush unless
one returns to the events of September 11, 2001, and
attempts to understand the effect of those terrorist
attacks on the United States' leaders and on its foreign
policy. On that day, the US forever lost its sense of
invincibility. It was that loss that created a
larger-than-life demon of the "global reach"
capabilities of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Since
then, those responsible for the domestic security of the
United States have been talking endlessly about further
possible terrorist attacks, and about al-Qaeda's sleeper
cells inside the country.
Yes, there have been a
few arrests made of Americans of Yemeni decent for their
alleged involvement in al-Qaeda training camps. There
were also a few indictments made on the charge that some
Arab-Americans were allegedly involved in providing
funds to al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad by misusing
religious charities. But the American sense of
vulnerability never ameliorated since the September 11
attacks.
That very frame of mind seems to be
driving Bush's global war on terrorism. Watching him
from a distance, I am not certain whether he remains a
victim of deep psychological scars that the events of
September 11 have left on his psyche, or he is so
severely and consistently externalizing his anger
stemming from those events that he is driving his
country hard toward the achievement of a utopia where
there will be no more bin Ladens. Such a utopia, alas,
is only imaginary. In the real world of our existence,
terrorism will always be around as long as unhappy
persons are around.
Bush seems to be deeply
troubled by the thought that as great a democracy and
freedom-loving country the United States is, why is that
it is not loved by the people of Middle East? To him,
America's "goodness" is a good enough reason for all
freedom-loving persons all over the world to admire, if
not love, that country. He consistently fails to see the
crucial linkage between what the United States
represents as a symbol of democracy and human rights and
how the policies of his administration are affecting
those in the Palestinian territories who yearn to be
free of Israeli occupation and to regain their dignity
as a free nation.
After all, these are the very
inalienable rights that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln so fervently and ardently proclaimed during the
fledgling years of American democracy. If Jefferson were
to return to this Earth today, he would likely author
another declaration of independence for all persons who
are yearning to be free - people in such places as
Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Tibet, North Korea,
Myanmar, and other nations in the Middle East and Africa
where tyranny rules. Of these subjugated peoples, the
Palestinians are the most deserving of America's
attention, yet under the Bush presidency they have been
a victim of a systematic neglect, especially in the
aftermath of the September 11 attacks on the United
States.
Yet when Bush decided to change the
focus of his global war on terrorism from terrorists to
Saddam Hussein, the United States became isolated. That
was another shock for the US president. As he raised the
level of his rhetoric in demonizing Saddam Hussein, a
whole lot of countries in Europe and Asia remembered
that the tyrant of Baghdad was no less of a tyrant in
the 1980s - when he attacked Iran - than he is now.
Except in the 1980s, the United States actively
supported him to win the Iran-Iraq war. That sense of
history was totally absent from President Bush's
thinking - and later on, even from the thinking of
Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he adopted the
Bush administration's party line about the "newly
discovered" brutal nature of Saddam’s regime.
In
addition, in Europe and in the Middle East, the
predominant feeling was that the most pressing problem
that would make the Middle East a stable place was the
resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, not the
toppling of Saddam Hussein, as the Bush administration
argued. European and Arab leaders were furious that the
Untied States was not doing enough to create another
series of dialogue for the revival of the moribund peace
process in the occupied territories. Instead, the
foremost topic on the Bush agenda was getting rid of
Saddam's dictatorial rule in the guise of bringing about
the disarmament of Iraq.
Thus, the September 11
attacks created an entirely different sense of priority
in Washington. The Bush administration never wanted to
be caught off guard again. Not only the terrorists, but
those with highly suspect records in terms of their past
dealings with the international bad guys had to be
either put on notice (remember his "axis of evil"
bumper-sticker slogan) or targeted through the use of
preemption doctrine or argument for regime change.
What about the hubris of a certain victory in
Iraq? The foremost fear in the Middle East is that after
occupying Iraq, the United States will become so cocky
that it will be looking for next targets of regime
change. Would it be Syria, Libya, or Sudan? Your guess
is as good as any.
The likelihood of North Korea
being on the US target list of regime change is not very
high, unless it blatantly exhibits its willingness to
become a declared nuclear power.
If the hubris
stemming from "liberating" Iraq were to become a driving
force of US foreign policy, then there is no stopping
the lone superpower. How that region would react to such
a hubris-driven policy is an entirely different matter.
About the only prediction one can make right now is that
the Middle East, as well as the United States, is in for
a surprise.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(©2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
