This is from Laxer's website. There is a Messianic strain in Bush's foreign policy that is somewhat akin to a crusade. But there was the same crusading against communism and the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union. While Bush as a fundamentalist Christian may also personally believe in this crusade Bush is not alone in determining policy. The neo-con cabal many associated with the PNAC (Project for the New American Century) set out their aims before 9/11. The terror attacks and the war on terror provided an ideal vehicle by which to set their dreams of US hegemony in motion and gain US and even global support for these aims.
I think that the faith based aspect of the invasions was a buttressing factor but not likely a determining one. There was huge support for making sure that Afghanistan did not continue as a terrorist training ground. Certainly this did not justify an invasion and regime change in Afghanistan but it was great enough that the US had many allies in invading Afghanistan and being instrumental in overthrowing the Taliban. The Taliban by the way never directly attacked any other country and the US had been involved in aiding the Taliban to stop poppy production. Allies simply agreed with the US that Afghanistan needed to be neutralised as a haven for jihadists.
The Iraq case is actually quite different. There is no way that it could be convincingly tied in with terrorism although some pundits tried to link Hussein with terrorism. The main ties of Hussein with terrorism were with the Palestinians not Al Qaeda terrorism directed against the US but terror used as resistance against Israel.
In fact the Iraq invasion was justified primarily in terms of Hussein posing a threat to the US through getting weapons of mass destruction. It is true that Hussein's brutal rule was often used as a butressing argument it only became a key reason after it was shown that there were no WMD.
Laxer is certainly right about US policy makers not considering the longer term results of their actions. The US view is saturated with hubris. Policy makers think that US might and rightness will make everything come out all right. If it doesn't it can be easily fixed since the US has the largest and most effective military machine in the world that can subdue any opposition. As Laxer shows it has not at all worked out this way.
While Harper may also think that allied with the US it can remake Afghanistan this is not the main part of Harper's realism. It is just part of his selling of the mission that we will make Afghan a viable democracy with the rule of law and the beginnings of a prosperous market economy. Another aspect of his "realism" is closer alignment with the US. This fits in with his increase in military spending. Co-operating more closely in realizing US foreign policy aims will he thinks give us greater clout and some of the spoils associated with being hegemon.
On the 6th Anniversary of September 11: Utopianism and Reality in Afghanistan and Iraq
The US-led invasions that followed the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, in Afghanistan and Iraq were nothing less than vainglorious attempts to remake countries in ways they could not be remade. These have been latter-day crusades, just as much the product of apocalyptic religious fervour as those undertaken in the Middle Ages. They will end just as badly.
The September 11 attacks provoked a wave of messianic thinking of the sort that previous crises have generated at other times in American history. The Bush administration responded with the idea that to counter an act of such evil, a war must be declared whose purpose was to banish evil itself. A year after the attacks, George W. Bush declared: “Our responsibility to history is clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil.” In his Second Inaugural Address on January 20, 2005, Bush focused on the positive side of the determination to rid the world of evil: “America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world and to all the inhabitants thereof.”
It is not that the US did not have material objectives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Oil, the transportation routes to oil and natural gas and the quest for strategic military advantage in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia mattered. But the language of the President was apocalyptic and absolute.
To understand the invasions, Bush’s words need to be taken seriously. The most important motive for the military missions was to transform Afghanistan and Iraq in America’s image. Without the messianism, the idea that it was America’s God given task to remake the world, these invasions would have been unthinkable. Following the invasion of Iraq, George W. Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that “God told me to strike Al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.”
Certainly the president was reaching out to the religious right with these statements. But it is a mistake to think that Bush and his advisers are not subject to the messianism they express.
Hard as it is four years after the assault on Iraq to remember this, the invasion was undertaken in the last flush of the triumphalism that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was the brief era of the End of History and the Borderless World when the notion reigned supreme that liberal capitalism was the way ahead for all of humanity. The architects of Operation Iraqi Freedom actually believed that American forces would be met by cheering crowds and feted with bouquets of flowers.
Those who launched the invasions did almost no serious thinking about long-term consequences. In Iraq, the invasion unleashed chaos and suffering---four million people have become refugees. It gave Al Qaeda a foothold in Iraq which it had never had before and it handed enormous power to Shiite theocrats with strong links to Iran. The report by General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, that there has been modest military progress in the country as a consequence of the surge in American troop strength there, has been treated by observers as little more than a political message to improve the position of the US for its endgame in a failed war. In war, it is a rule of thumb that statements by a commanding general are aimed at winning the propaganda struggle, and are not exercises in truth telling.
In Afghanistan, the invaders have wandered into a thicket of long-existing struggles between the Pashtun in the south---from whom most of the Taliban emerged---and other tribal groups in the north and other parts of the country. Without being sufficiently aware of what they were doing, the western invaders became embroiled in tribal and factional struggles that extend from Afghanistan into neighbouring regions of Pakistan.
The Harper government and other proponents of Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan like to portray their approach as one of hard-headed realism. They are sailing under false colours. From the start, the idea that the West could successfully conquer Afghanistan and impose a western style government on that country has been a utopian fantasy.
The Taliban has had the tactical wit to align itself with the poppy growers and drug warlords they formerly opposed when they ran the country. That has drawn the US, Canada and other western powers into an opium war so that many Afghans now believe the West threatens their livelihood and that the Taliban is their protector.
The government of Hamid Karzai has begun quiet negotiations with elements of the Taliban. A deal in the not distant future is entirely possible. The result of such a deal would not be democracy, the rule of law and equal rights for women. It would mean an altered configuration of power in Afghanistan, with new Pashtun and Taliban elements in the government and some former Northern Alliance factions out of it. It would not bring peace, but rather a continued armed struggle, with a different list of players on the opposing sides.
The US and NATO could well seize on a deal with parts of the Taliban to declare victory and pull most of their troops out.
In the meantime, Canadian soldiers are fighting and too many are dying in campaigns to retake terrain they have previously taken only to have the Taliban reoccupy it later. Small gains are made building and opening schools, but these are often nullified by an insurgency that remains potent.
The Harper government and other backers of the war have resorted to hiding behind the soldiers to escape their own responsibility for the mess we are in. The exhortation that we must all “Support Our Troops”---something, which if meant literally virtually all Canadians do---is being used to silence critics of the mission.
The preposterous result is that a Canadian government that calls itself “conservative” is floundering in a failing crusade. Meanwhile those who want our troops brought home are the ones who adhere to the traditional conservative idea that wars should only be fought when they are unavoidable and that they should never be fought in aid of messianic missions to reconstruct the world.
Our politics has been turned inside out in ways that are deeply puzzling to almost everyone. Conservatives have become utopians, even if at times they are embarrassed by the rhetoric of George W. Bush. Meanwhile those in other parts of the political spectrum have become the skeptics, those who warn that the world cannot and should not be subjected to violent campaigns to transform it in the name of liberation, campaigns whose tangible results are death and dislocation on an enormous scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment