Is Our Foreign Policy An Invitation to "Bring It On"?

The Bush administration published its 'National Security Strategy of the United States of America" on September 17, 2002. What this document states as the guiding policy of the United States, is the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or believes may at some point in the future become, a threat to American interests. Not America. Not the American people. American interests. Like some country wanting to control their own natural resources, perhaps?

It begins by declaring, "The United States possesses unprecedented and unequaled strength and influence in the world." It then goes on to state, "The US national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests." American internationalism? Our values and our national interests? Does this sound a little more like it involves empire building than national security? Bush may have been raised in Texas, but he needs a refresher in the history of the Old West. When you were the biggest and baddest and held the title of the "fastest gun", it was an invitation for everyone else who fancied himself pretty good with a gun to challenge you and take you down.

It makes clear Bush's statements concerning unilateral action in the Iraq invasion since it says in the document, "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone...". Acting alone may be wise because there won't be any witnesses. Of course, it probably wouldn't matter since the document also states, the United States "will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept." In other words, the actions of the leaders of the United States will not be bound by the conventions or authority of international law.

Our policy, that we are declaring to the world, says that we claim the right to use our unchallenged powers to take unilateral action against anyone, without having to show proof of immediate threat whenever we, alone, decide it's justified. "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." It warns other countries, not to pursue "a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." While on the other hand, "It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge." That sounds like the talk of a rogue state to me. Why do we have to build our defenses? Didn't we just say we had unprecedented and unequaled strength? We have the weapons capacity now to destroy the world forty times over. It's only going to take once.

To monitor the other countries we would have to occupy them or their neighbors. "To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of US forces." Wouldn't we have fewer security challenges if we minded our own business and didn't look for long-distance trouble?

While the Bush administration is claiming that the policies outlined in its National Security Strategy is in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, the claim is a deception. That strategy was first presented to Bush Sr. by Dick Cheney in 1992 in a paper called "Defense Planning Guidance". The breakup of the Soviet Union saw the end of the Cold War and an end of any challenge to America as the dominant world power. To seize this moment of opportunity, Defense Secretary Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and then-general, Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for the implementation of vastly expanded operational objectives for US military forces. They stipulated that the military should be able to complete one major war in 100 days and two in less than 180 days. In order to achieve and maintain this, it would be necessary for the United States to have control of the access to the oil necessary for its military needs.

The plan for American world dominance was interrupted by the defeat of Bush Sr. in the Bush-Clinton election when Bill Clinton won the presidency. Apparently their plan was simply put on hold, since all the key players were put back in place in this administration, with eight years of planning, expanding and refining of the original plan, while visions of world dominance danced in their head.

Everything we were told as the reason for invading Iraq was simply an excuse to complete what had been planned for 12 years. The PNAC said what was needed to implement the plan was a "Pearl Harbor-type event" to inflame the passions of the American people. 9-11 certainly presented that opportunity. All the rhetoric since 9-11 is just that...rhetoric.

It was necessary to demonize Saddam even though other nations have WMD, Saudis made up 15 of the 19 hijackers, Saudis financed alQaida, Osama is Saudi. Iraq has a better human rights record than some other countries. In fact, before the Gulf War, every Iraqi citizen had free education and free health care. As far as not complying with UN resolutions, Israel has ignored 64 of them, some since as far back as 1967. Since there are nations that exceed the reasons being given for invading Iraq, it should raise suspicions as to the reason for the choice. Once you are aware of the intentions of the people now occupying the important decision making positions in the White House, world domination, it becomes clear. This does not excuse the "crimes" of Saddam, but since there are worse, it must call into question the obsessive focus on just him.

This administration's radical foreign policy has not made us more secure. It has, in fact made it more likely that we will be attacked because we are giving more people more reasons to attack us. It may be hard to see how the declaring of our arrogant and aggressive national security strategy has made us hated by so much of the world. That document deals in global terms and is almost too big for most of us to relate to, so let's try to look at its effects on a smaller, personal scale.

Imagine that a band of thugs came into your neighborhood one day who didn't even live there. They came from the other side of town and started telling you what you were allowed to do in your own neighborhood. Suppose that the head thug walked into a store you owned and said, "I want ten boxes of those cigars, but I'm not going to pay you what you want for them. I want them for less and I want 10 boxes every month. If you don't give me what I want for the price I want to pay, we're all coming back and we're going to wreck your store, break the windows and take all your merchandise. Now these are very big thugs and they carry around knives and guns and chains and brass knuckles. You wouldn't stand a chance trying to fight them. Every time they came into your neighborhood they would set down more rules you had to follow. You couldn't park in front of your store because they wanted to park there if they happened to want something from your store, at their price, of course. Then one day you decide to get an estimate to put bars across your store windows and start shopping for an alarm system and a security camera for protection. When the thugs hear what you're thinking about they come by and threaten you and your family if you try to get bars and an alarm to protect yourself. You're stuck. You can't defy them. They're too strong and have too many weapons that they could really hurt you with or even kill you. You're angry and frustrated at feeling so helpless. You want to get back at them somehow so you wait until they leave your store with the ten boxes of cigars and go around the corner to the diner. Their cars are parked in front of your store. You sneak out and let the air out of one of the tires. It was a small act of protest but it made you feel at least a little vindicated knowing you were able to strike back at them in some way for the terror they caused you. Now you start thinking of all the other ways you can get back at them and not feel so completely at their mercy. Direct confrontation is out of the question but you can key their car, put sugar in their gas tank, break a tail light. You would have to be careful and sneak out to the cars so they don't catch you but at least you don't feel so much like a victim anymore. If they hadn't come into your neighborhood telling you what to do and making threats, you never would have done anything to their cars. Ultimately, the thugs themselves were responsible for the attacks on their cars.

To stop terrorism you must first look at what caused it. It cannot be defeated through military means because that will only breed more resentment among the innocent victims of our military victories. As long as we refuse to look at the US contributory factors we will never be rid of terrorists. The theory is expressed simply in the basis of an old joke:

Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
Doctor: 'Then don 't do this."

8-19-04