The Age of Empire

Many have attempted to dismiss George W. Bush and his Administration as merely incompetent or a bunch of idiots. I would tend to disagree to the extent that bumbling may suggest that the Administration is not also dangerous. Our President is not the brightest bulb on the tree, and he does not pride himself as such. He sees himself as a “man of action.” Too much cerebral energy and reflection is often the enemy of action. And it would be fair to assume that Vice President Cheney prefers that the Chief Executive not be extremely bright, as that makes manipulation more difficult. It is enough that George W. Bush sees himself as the leader of the greatest nation on earth and that God has ordained him to spread the American way of life across the planet. Armed with this “knowledge,” he has implemented a foreign policy based upon confrontation rather than cooperation and diplomacy. Other sovereign states are either his pawns or his enemies. Reaching back to the Jacksonian theory of democracy and foreign relations, Bush believes that any other country that is not “democratic” is a threat to the United States. Any country that refuses to bend to the will of his Administration or that is run by a regime that rejects US claims of arbitrary rights and the license to interfere in that country’s affairs is deemed a threat or even labeled a “rogue” state.

The revived policy of Manifest Destiny that the Bush Administration espouses is not a recent development. George H.W. Bush followed it, but with a bit more finesse than his son, perhaps because of his years with the CIA and an understanding that international relations require some subtlety. The Clinton Administration senior foreign policy advisors harbored the notion that the US had the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations if there appeared to be a serious threat to US control of global economic markets. Clinton preferred diplomacy, perhaps because he is more adept with language, and followed the Roosevelt advice of “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” The Bush Administration, in contrast, has gone about the globe threatening anyone who raises opposition to its agenda and plans. But conquest and control has been a consistent objective of this country's leadership.

To make sense of the Bush Doctrine, it is important to look at the strategy more than the implementation. The execution of the strategy has been, and is likely to go down in the annals of history as, one of the greatest displays of ineptitude and mismanagement this country has ever seen. But back to the strategy. In order to accomplish a conquest, the central goal is the capture and control of vital resources. Those resources could be in the form of: a)land that has special value because of its volume, climate or strategic location; b)the populace that has special value because of shear numbers, special skills [such as military proficiency] or sophistication and education that would foster productivity by the conquered asset; or c) important natural resources that are valuable because of the universal demand for them and their linkage to global economic markets.

When analyzed in this context, it is easy to understand the desire of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, topple the Saddam Hussein regime and establish a client state. Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East, and as a gateway between Arabian oil fields and Eastern Europe. The people of Iraq were considered some of the best educated and capable people of the region prior to the imposition of sanctions that strangled the lifeblood of the country and caused the highly trained professionals to flee. It goes without saying that Iraq possesses huge deposits and reserves of petroleum, [approximately 25% of the world reserves] a quantity that could manipulate or destabilize world markets if controlled and developed. The notion that Bush invaded Iraq because of some perceived threat to US citizens or national security has not only been debunked, it was absurd in the first place. The Downing Street Memos confirm that Bush and Blair discussed sending drone planes over Iraq with UN markings in order to provoke an attack, thereby providing justification for military intervention with UN support. Other documented reports from Cabinet level meetings show that Bush entered the White House with the agenda of regime change in Iraq.

When looked at from the vantage point of targets for conquest, the choice to invade Iraq seems the obvious one. The purported excuse for the attack, some form of "anticipatory self-defense," only serves to distract attention and confuse the real issues. One has to put aside considerations of international law, ethics and compassion for innocent civilians to pursue the Bush Doctrine. But Karl Rove has been so masterful in manipulating the public through a campaign of fear and hysteria, the country seems to have simply forgotten about moral principles and national integrity. The loss of innocent lives has not seemed to trouble the Bush Administration too much, whether the deaths took place abroad or in the Gulf Coast of teh United States. It also does not seem to matter to the White House if the deceased were US soldiers and citizens or Iraqis. The Bush Administration has always regarded international law as a tool to pressure other governments to follow Washington directives, and a mere inconvenience when it would appear to impede that plans of the Administration. [e.g., Geneva Conventions, Tokyo Protocol, NPT, and the list goes on]

That the Bush Doctrine can be articulated and explained does not make it legal. Neither does it suggest that the majority of American people support it. The approval ratings for Bush are stuck at around 33% and are unlikely to improve. If more people actually understood the strategy and Bush Doctrine, it is possible that those approval ratings could go even lower. It is ironic that a single political party controls the White House and Congress and yet the leadership is so out of touch with the majority of American people. The belief that the American people would approve of torture of prisoners, rape and murder of civilians, use of white phosphorous [napalm equivalent or worse] on civilians, kidnapping and indefinite detention of people without any right to contest the basis for their imprisonment seems to push the envelope. Even if the public had been inclined to endorse an immoral, illegal and foolhardy adventure such as invading another country and deposing its ruler [keep in mind that the US has done so before], one could hardly expect continued support when the job has been done so poorly.