From Kabul to Baghdad

18 September 2003

From The Star-Opinion
Guest Column

By O. Max Gardner III
Special to The Star

Speaking soon after the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush declared that "every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.  Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."  And, at that time, almost every government in the world was "with us."  Even Iran and the Palestinian Authority condemned the attacks.  And China, Russia and Pakistan pledged solidarity.  Canada, Japan and Australia rushed to aid or complement the American military campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  NATO, for the first time in history, declared the crimes of al Qaeda to be acts of aggression against the entire alliance.  Yes, back then they were all with us and we were with them. It was law and order against disorder and lawlessness.  It was good versus evil.  It was all of us against all of them.  We were going to get bin Laden, we were going to "hunt him down and smoke him out, either dead or alive," just like Marshall Matt Dillon in the old Gunsmoke show.  We were the "good guys" with the white hats.

Then, all at once, we were no longer out to get bin Laden "either dead or alive" but to get Sadam.  The threat posed by bin Laden was mysteriously replaced by the "imminent threat" of Sadam.  Bush had for some reason made a fateful decision to go it alone against the so-called Axis of Evil, who he identified in his 2002 State of the Union address as Iraq, Iran and North Korea.  In drastically departing from the approach that has characterized U.S. foreign policy for half-a-hundred years, Bush explicitly rejected the advice offered by one senior statesman who warned, "The most recent surprise attack [should] erase the concept in some quarters that the United States can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism, or in anything else, for that matter."  So said George H. W. Bush, the 41st president of the United States.  But his son, the 43rd president, in rejecting this approach, offered his own perspective shortly before going to war with Iraq:  "At some point, we may be the only ones left.  That's okay with me.  We are America."  Madeleine K. Albright, the former Secretary of State, has said that the Bush Administration has replaced "reliance on alliance" with "redemption through preemption."  I am not sure things are this simple but I am sure that Bush and his let's have a new war this week cronies have gotten us in one helluva mess!

This basic change in our approach to the world seeks to substitute the shock of brute force for the hard work of diplomacy.  And, it begs the fundamental question of do we really want a world in which every country feels entitled to attack any other that might someday threaten it? Can China just decide to "take out" Taiwan because they present a threat?  Can Russia take the same military action against Poland?  Where does it end?  What happens to international law?  What happens to world order?  As much as we may not want to admit it, the rest of the world does not necessarily subscribe to the American view of things and specifically to Bush's new unilateral doctrine to strike first and talk about it later. 

Many observers argue that the new Bush Doctrine has made the world a safer place.  But has it?  And, even if the post-Sadam world is a better place has it been worth the price?  And I am not referring to the hundreds of billions of dollars we the American taxpayers have spent and will have to spend on Bush's misadventure in nation building.  The real shock and awe of this new war is that we are spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars in a land and in a place where we are not welcome and where most of the people just want us to pack-up and go home. 

Unfortunately, the Iraq war and the subsequent United States occupation of Baghdad-the historic capital city of Islam-have enraged Islamic moderates and others around the world; have encouraged anti-American feelings among most Arabs; have served as the greatest recruitment tool that al Qaeda has ever had; have created a lawless and borderless territory without such basic necessities as water, sewage and electrical systems;  and have resulted in the death of more American soldiers since President Bush declared victory from the flight deck of a Navy Carrier than occurred during the actual war.  The fact of the matter is that we are a long way from "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

Regrettably, Bush's vision of the world is just too simple and much too naive.  The world is not just black and white; it is many colors and shades of those colors.  Sadam was clearly a bad and evil man; but Sadam and al Qaeda were two distinct and separate entities.  Sadam had nothing to do with 911 and apparently had no weapons of mass destruction to give to bin Laden or anyone else for that matter.  Bush, however, wants us to see Sadam and bin Laden as one and the same.  As a result, his administration has attempted to meld the problem of bin Laden with Iraq, North Korea, Iran and the illusive weapons of mass destruction.  Defeating Sadam will not eliminate bin Laden; defeating al Qaeda will not end the problem of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and, al Qaeda is and will continue to be a deadly force even without nuclear, chemical or biological arms. 

I am afraid that the second George W. Bush has created our own Rosemary's baby and it is one ugly monster that will not go away anytime soon.  Bush has also committed our grandchildren and their children to a lifetime of attempting to pay-off the tremendous debt that has been and will be incurred in resolving our worst national nightmare.