Wednesday 15 January
2003
America has entered one of its
periods of historical madness,
but this is the worst I can remember:
worse than McCarthyism, worse
than the Bay of Pigs and in the
long term potentially more disastrous
than the Vietnam War.
The reaction to 9/11 is beyond
anything Osama bin Laden could
have hoped for in his nastiest
dreams. As in McCarthy times,
the freedoms that have made America
the envy of the world are being
systematically eroded. The combination
of compliant US media and vested
corporate interests is once more
ensuring that a debate that should
be ringing out in every town square
is confined to the loftier columns
of the East Coast press.
The imminent war was planned
years before bin Laden struck,
but it was he who made it possible.
Without bin Laden, the Bush junta
would still be trying to explain
such tricky matters as how it
came to be elected in the first
place; Enron; its shameless favouring
of the already-too-rich; its reckless
disregard for the world's poor,
the ecology and a raft of unilaterally
abrogated international treaties.
They might also have to be telling
us why they support Israel in
its continuing disregard for UN
resolutions.
But bin Laden conveniently swept
all that under the carpet. The
Bushies are riding high. Now 88
per cent of Americans want the
war, we are told. The US defence
budget has been raised by another
$60 billion to around $360 billion.
A splendid new generation of nuclear
weapons is in the pipeline, so
we can all breathe easy. Quite
what war 88 per cent of Americans
think they are supporting is a
lot less clear. A war for how
long, please? At what cost in
American lives? At what cost to
the American taxpayer's pocket?
At what cost -- because most of
those 88 per cent are thoroughly
decent and humane people -- in
Iraqi lives?
How Bush and his junta succeeded
in deflecting America's anger
from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein
is one of the great public relations
conjuring tricks of history. But
they swung it. A recent poll tells
us that one in two Americans now
believe Saddam was responsible
for the attack on the World Trade
Centre. But the American public
is not merely being misled. It
is being browbeaten and kept in
a state of ignorance and fear.
The carefully orchestrated neurosis
should carry Bush and his fellow
conspirators nicely into the next
election.
Those who are not with Mr Bush
are against him. Worse, they are
with the enemy. Which is odd,
because I'm dead against Bush,
but I would love to see Saddam's
downfall -- just not on Bush's
terms and not by his methods.
And not under the banner of such
outrageous hypocrisy.
The religious cant that will
send American troops into battle
is perhaps the most sickening
aspect of this surreal war-to-be.
Bush has an arm-lock on God. And
God has very particular political
opinions. God appointed America
to save the world in any way that
suits America. God appointed Israel
to be the nexus of America's Middle
Eastern policy, and anyone who
wants to mess with that idea is
a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American,
c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.
God also has pretty scary connections.
In America, where all men are
equal in His sight, if not in
one another's, the Bush family
numbers one President, one ex-President,
one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor
of Florida and the ex-Governor
of Texas.
Care for a few pointers? George
W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive,
Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration,
an oil company; 1986-90: senior
executive of the Harken oil company.
Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief
executive of the Halliburton oil
company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000:
senior executive with the Chevron
oil company, which named an oil
tanker after her. And so on. But
none of these trifling associations
affects the integrity of God's
work.
In 1993, while ex-President George
Bush was visiting the ever-democratic
Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks
for liberating them, somebody
tried to kill him. The CIA believes
that "somebody'' was Saddam. Hence
Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried
to kill my Daddy.'' But it's still
not personal, this war. It's still
necessary. It's still God's work.
It's still about bringing freedom
and democracy to oppressed Iraqi
people.
To be a member of the team you
must also believe in Absolute
Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush,
with a lot of help from his friends,
family and God, is there to tell
us which is which. What Bush won't
tell us is the truth about why
we're going to war. What is at
stake is not an Axis of Evil --
but oil, money and people's lives.
Saddam's misfortune is to sit
on the second biggest oilfield
in the world. Bush wants it, and
who helps him get it will receive
a piece of the cake. And who doesn't,
won't.
If Saddam didn't have the oil,
he could torture his citizens
to his heart's content. Other
leaders do it every day -- think
Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan,
think Turkey, think Syria, think
Egypt.
Baghdad represents no clear and
present danger to its neighbours,
and none to the US or Britain.
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction,
if he's still got them, will be
peanuts by comparison with the
stuff Israel or America could
hurl at him at five minutes' notice.
What is at stake is not an imminent
military or terrorist threat,
but the economic imperative of
US growth. What is at stake is
America's need to demonstrate
its military power to all of us
-- to Europe and Russia and China,
and poor mad little North Korea,
as well as the Middle East; to
show who rules America at home,
and who is to be ruled by America
abroad.
The most charitable interpretation
of Tony Blair's part in all this
is that he believed that, by riding
the tiger, he could steer it.
He can't. Instead, he gave it
a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth
voice. Now I fear, the same tiger
has him penned into a corner,
and he can't get out.
It is utterly laughable that,
at a time when Blair has talked
himself against the ropes, neither
of Britain's opposition leaders
can lay a glove on him. But that's
Britain's tragedy, as it is America's:
as our Governments spin, lie and
lose their credibility, the electorate
simply shrugs and looks the other
way. Blair's best chance of personal
survival must be that, at the
eleventh hour, world protest and
an improbably emboldened UN will
force Bush to put his gun back
in his holster unfired. But what
happens when the world's greatest
cowboy rides back into town without
a tyrant's head to wave at the
boys?
Blair's worst chance is that,
with or without the UN, he will
drag us into a war that, if the
will to negotiate energetically
had ever been there, could have
been avoided; a war that has been
no more democratically debated
in Britain than it has in America
or at the UN. By doing so, Blair
will have set back our relations
with Europe and the Middle East
for decades to come. He will have
helped to provoke unforeseeable
retaliation, great domestic unrest,
and regional chaos in the Middle
East. Welcome to the party of
the ethical foreign policy.
There is a middle way, but it's
a tough one: Bush dives in without
UN approval and Blair stays on
the bank. Goodbye to the special
relationship.
I cringe when I hear my Prime
Minister lend his head prefect's
sophistries to this colonialist
adventure. His very real anxieties
about terror are shared by all
sane men. What he can't explain
is how he reconciles a global
assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial
assault on Iraq. We are in this
war, if it takes place, to secure
the fig leaf of our special relationship,
to grab our share of the oil pot,
and because, after all the public
hand-holding in Washington and
Camp David, Blair has to show
up at the altar.
"But will we win, Daddy?''
"Of course, child. It will all
be over while you're still in
bed.''
"Why?''
"Because otherwise Mr Bush's
voters will get terribly impatient
and may decide not to vote for
him.''
"But will people be killed, Daddy?''
"Nobody you know, darling. Just
foreign people.''
"Can I watch it on television?''
"Only if Mr Bush says you can.''
"And afterwards, will everything
be normal again? Nobody will do
anything horrid any more?''
"Hush child, and go to sleep.''
Last Friday a friend of mine
in California drove to his local
supermarket with a sticker on
his car saying: "Peace is also
Patriotic''. It was gone by the
time he'd finished shopping.
-------
The author has also contributed
to an openDemocracy debate on
Iraq at www.openDemocracy.net
|