It’s time for the President of the United States, George W. Bush, to quit apologising for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein. Too often, in this farcical joke that has passed for an election campaign, the Democrats have been virtually accusing the President, and his Cabinet (among whom are some of the leading lights and best hopes of America and the free world), of being little more than a war-mongering "cabal" intent on destroying the Middle East and exploiting its resources for their own fiendish ends.
Well I, for one, am quite sick of it. It’s time for Mr. Bush and his Administration to stop cowering from these Moore-ish (and boorish) attacks on his integrity and stand up for the truth.
The simple fact is that Mr. Bush was RIGHT to invade Iraq. The reason is simple and quite easy to understand, even for Liberals and Democrats, when looked at from the right perspective. For example, if a known "thug" holds what appears a "gun" at my family or me, I react swiftly and decisively, based on the information that seems valid to me at the time. What I would not do is first create a "commission of inquiry," or ask knowledgeable people, including the police, if I have a legitimate, legal, and moral right to act against the perceived threat in such a way that I immobilise it; even if it results in the potential threat’s destruction.
That, however, is exactly Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry’s way. According to his own admission (depending on which "admission" you wish to believe), he would have the United States to wait until the last possible second, blindly hoping that Hussein would quietly, and meekly, submit to the UN; all the while evidence piled up higher than the wall they hung Haman on, that he not only had "weapons of mass destruction," but was also willing to use them.History is a harsh master, and an even tougher tutor, but anyone who studies it cannot but come away with the lesson that tyrants only respect force. Our fathers and grandfathers learned that he hard way in Munich, which effectively raped Czechoslovakia and brought about the catastrophe of the Second World War.
Thankfully, they learned their lesson within a generation and, as a result, were able to contain the Soviet Union until it finally imploded in 1991. But then came the 9/11, a date that forever changed the world, and it became apparent that the zeal of our forefathers was forgotten by their children in the relative peace and stability that their blood and sacrifice made possible.
At that moment the idea of "co-operative security" that the United Nations did so much to foster in the previous 50 years, proved to be a chimera. Among nations, with rational political policies (even ones diametrically opposed and hostile to the West, among them the Communist Bloc and other totalitarian regimes), the UN "worked." Why? Because all sides agreed to abide by its principles and accepted the consequences (which that association imposed) when one of its members was threatened. But since the end of the Cold War a new dynamic appeared, one that neither respected the UN, nor could accept it’s founding principles; Islamic Terrorism and the attendant rogue states which then, and now, support it.
These particular "elements" worked outside the boundaries of recognised state legitimacy, sowing anarchy either through surrogate armies of Jihadis, or by funding their activities. Among them such states at Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, North Korea, and Afghanistan, not to mention erstwhile "allies" such as Saudi Arabia, whose rampant Wahhabism influenced Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Yet while this threat gathered, the United States, indeed, the world, slept, and waited, relying, too often, on the "goodwill" of the very states in whose bosom these unlawful elements found sanctuary.
When 9/11 came, however, it was Munich and Pearl Harbour all over again, but on a scale far beyond the scope the UN was designed to deal with. Having thus set the terms of engagement outside the boundaries and controls of the state-system that the 20th Century lived by, it became obvious that the only way to fight rogue states and terrorists was to also go beyond those same boundaries.
That is the foundation of the Bush Doctrine following 9/11 and why war with Iraq became not only a political but also a military necessity. The only problem was that, in this case, despite the best efforts of the American Intelligence network, the information was, ultimately, incorrect.
In this case the "thug" was carrying only a water pistol, not a Colt .45 (even though he tried to make it appear he had a real weapon). He was still a "thug," though, and the world is, indeed, better off with him in chains than in a position where he could possibly acquire real weapons. The question that intrigues me, however, is why people are so intent on punishing the man who locked him up, instead of being grateful that there is, at last, someone who is no longer willing to sit back and wait for a sworn enemy’s next blow to fall.
In this case, President George W. Bush, despite Michael Moores’ propaganda film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," was doing only what any rational person would do. He reacted against a threat that he believed, quite sincerely, to be real, gathering, and imminent. That is not the actions of a fool, a crazy man, or a person trying to "steal" the resources of a foreign country, but of rational human being reacting to the information given him. Unlike former President Clinton, under whose watch the Al-Qaeda threat was allowed to materialise and build a nest in the chaos of Afghanistan, however, this president was not willing to sit still and wait for another generation to rise up and deal with it.
The events of 9/11 showed that this was no longer a worthwhile option. Rogue states, and their terrorist surrogates, were clearly not willing to be subject to the proscriptions and rational behaviour that characterise civilised states and nations, and the bodies they voluntarily adhere too, such as the UN. If and when they do, however, as several rogue Arab states have done, it is only to disguise their desire to undermine the legitimacy of other states (such as Israel), or because they hope use such organisations as forums to rail against the very system that "contains" their own political ambitions.
Hence the question of to attack or not to attack Iraq really became a question of the legitimacy of the UN and the international system itself; a system whose rules Hussein had already violated once and most likely would have again. Ironically, it required action outside the UN, the guardian of state legitimacy since the end of W.W.II, to uphold that system because a majority of the states within it couldn’t grasp the threat to them posed by the rogue Iraqi regime and terrorism.
Mr. Kerry, in fact, still doesn’t grasp this. Despite his years of congressional service and actual combat experience, this "war hero" of a war he later denounced, would rather wait until a potential threat became a "real threat" and manifest itself is such a way that it would legitimise the actions he would then take. Yet "threats" by their very nature, are not "tangibles," they are intangibles and when they manifest themselves the only action left to a president, or any world leader, is re-action, something 9/11, Pearl Harbour, and the invasion of Poland in 1939 made the world all too aware of.
But for Mr. Kerry, however, it is not enough for a known "thug" to make his appearance at his door, nor would he be willing to commit to any course of action as long as the "thug" says he is willing to abide by certain unwritten rules of engagement. Thus, despite the fact that all the information indicates imminent danger, Mr. Kerry would not draw his own gun in self-defence, fearing that if he is ultimately proven wrong, he would face legal and political consequences which he is constitutionally (as a person) unwilling or incapable of accepting. He would, as the popular Republican slogan says, be mentally "flip-flopping," continually testing, in his mind, the limits of his own legitimacy to take action, instead of actually taking action because he lacks the understanding that the "thug" he is confronting is not bound by the same ethical rules he is.
President Bush, however, clearly doesn’t have that dilemma. Unlike the highly cerebral Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush recognised that 9/11 changed the rules of engagement forever. Just as Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo destroyed the Versailles Settlement in the 1930’s by their withdrawal from the League of Nations and support of Fascist regimes in Europe, so have the actions of rogue states like Iran, Libya, Syria, and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (along with their terrorist surrogates) destroyed the post-Cold War settlement in present times. Although these states have, from time to time, ostensibly used the UN and "state sovereignty" in their legitimately constructed forms for, arguably, legitimate and reasonable purposes, history has shown that when such states have done so, it is only as a pretext to weaken the system, not build it up. Were they to do otherwise, not only would it undermine the legitimacy of their own decrepit regimes but it would also damage their political aspirations.
In the similar way, when a known "thug" often finds himself before a magistrate he will claim he was an "innocent victim" because the guy he wanted to rob or murder, instead shot and wounded him first. He knows his actions are worthy of punishment but in the courtroom where his fate is to be decided, he pleads that the real "injury" he suffered, at the hands of his intended victim, makes him innocent of the crime he intended to commit.
This is the same "claim" Mr. Kerry and the Democrats now put forth in their attacks against the President. To them, Mr. Bush is "guilty" because he took down a "thug" based on the fact that the evidence presented at the time (evidence which even Mr. Kerry felt was compelling) turned out to be incorrect. This does not, however, make a legitimate case because, in reality, it is the finding of guilt ex-post-facto; or the discovery of fault due to a lack of clear 20/20 hindsight.
Mr. Kerry, however, would have the American public believe that, had he been president, he would have somehow known the true facts about Iraq’s suspected weapons of mass destruction all along and chosen not to invade. Just how he would have been found capable of that feat while in the White House, without being likewise enlightened while in the Senate (when he was convinced otherwise), he has not been able to explain.
This, however, is Mr. Kerry’s central contradiction and explains much of his flip-flopping on issues. It is also a disturbing quality for a would-be leader in an age where his legitimacy also reflects on the legitimacy of his nation and the subsequent actions they feel at liberty to take.
By the same token, however, had the "thug" in question truly been carrying a weapon, President Bush’s actions against him would then have been found to be a legitimate response, and the UN would have lost any remaining pretence to its claim of legitimacy as the guardian of world order. In this case, it is also entirely conceivable that, has a person like Mr. Kerry been in charge, he would have been incapable of any action at all. Paralysed by the crises of legitimacy he faced when confronted with evidence that appears incontrovertible, but unsure if the facts were absolutely correct, the Democratic nominee would have been incapable of acting until the report of the "thug’s" gun entered his ear, as the bullet (God forbid) slammed into his body.
By then of course, it would have been too late to do anything at all; the crises of legitimacy would have been resolved for good and, instead of being a "war hero," Mr. Kerry would be on the floor dying or dead (God forbid). Any action that followed from that point, however, whether by the "police" or the UN, would have resulted in yet another crises of legitimacy as each agency would first be required to get enough evidence to legitimise whatever action(s) it would then feel compelled to take. Then, to maintain that legitimacy, those actions would have to be measured against the prescribed standards that the legitimising powers granted it. In other words, any action(s) taken would have to be subject to the scrutiny of some of the very powers whose agents are the perpetrators of the crime that was committed.
The "thug, " of course, like the rogue state or the terrorist organisation, doesn’t have that problem. His/their existence is defined by the actions they take outside the law, or a legitimising institution such as the UN, allowing them/it to set the rules of engagement while, at the same time, restricting the actions of those who seek legitimacy within it.
That is the paradox John Kerry has not been able to resolve, or even show people that he is even remotely capable of doing it. Instead, he drifts from point to point, seeking validation for is views which, by necessity, must remain fluid. Unlike President Bush, who ended the debate on Iraq the same way Alexander the Great ended the Persian Empire by cutting the Gordian knot (with a sword), Mr. Kerry remains convinced he could have undone it and kept the damn string.
This can only stem from the certitude the Democratic nominee has in his own wisdom (a trait he criticises President Bush for also having), or a desire to go down in history as "The Great Un-Knotter"; although that would hardly be an impressive epitaph for a career in public service. Yet it also serves to highlight the central difference between the two contenders for the highest office in the United States.
While Mr. Kerry seeks legitimacy for his actions through a careful and thorough examination of the facts, President Bush relies on the self-evidence of the facts themselves. If Mr. Bush sees what looks like a gun or a weapon in the hands of his opponent, he doesn’t feel compelled to deconstruct it to ensure there is cause for alarm; the character of the person holding the alleged weapon is cause enough. Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, apparently finds incredible intellectual satisfaction in breaking down, to the utmost detail possible, the fact that the alleged weapon is in fact a gun, and that the person does in fact to use it against him.
To some, the President’s approach may seem a bit "gung-ho," especially for those who, like Mr. Kerry, have actually experienced the horrors of combat and fear the political/legal fallout should post-bellum evidence prove otherwise, as has been the demonstrated case in Iraq. The Kerry approach, however, also tends to be more vacillating (flip-flopping) and, in my opinion, much more dangerous because it refuses to recognise an obvious threat until that "threat" has manifested itself in the form of some great a catastrophe.
9/11 was one such a great catastrophe. Rooted in the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and manifest in the bombing of the USS Cole and the American embassies in Africa under President Bill Clinton, Al-Qaeda was not taken seriously until too late. Yet this event served to put the world on notice that the age of the rogue state and organised, state-sponsored global terrorism had begun.
These countries and organisations are defined as such because they seek legitimacy outside of the institutions recognised by the community of civilised states, or within them, but only for the purpose of undermining these organisations for their own political goals (the PLO being one exception, a terrorist group seeking legitimacy as a state and then trying to carve one out from land occupied by a legitimate state, Israel). In the same way that a "thug" is defined as someone acting outside the law while perpetrating a crime until they are caught, rogue states, likewise, then seek global legitimacy when they are wounded or attacked after their hostile intentions become clear (i.e. Taliban-ruled Afghanistan).
When President Bush attacked Iraq, therefore, he was not attacking the legitimacy of the UN, but of a state that he believed had been operating outside it, and building weapons it had prohibited from having. Ironically, in order to protect the structure of state legitimacy, he committed the United States to fight a war by going outside that very same structure. Why? Because it become obvious to him that the members within it had begun to de-legitimise that organisation from within by their inaction.
He was wrong but only in retrospect. Yet, based on the evidence presented him, I am convinced the President took the only proper and ethical course open to him in the world born after 9/11, in order to protect the United States and the West.
Mr. Kerry, however, could not do such a thing because he is intellectually incapable of working outside the comfortable and reassuring confines of legitimacy provided by other states and the UN. And precisely because he is not capable, he cannot, therefore, succeed against those states and the terrorist organisations that find and achieve legitimacy outside of the community of civilised states he champions. Constantly in search of validation and support, vacillating from one position to the next, and always worried about the consequences of being wrong, Mr. Kerry would compromise the effective security of the United States and the Western world.
President George Bush, however, would not. He might be "wrong," ex post facto, but I doubt, very much, that any known "thug" would be willing to come through his front door knowing he was not only waiting there with a loaded gun, but was also willing to use it.
That’s why I support him and why I think that his decision to invade Iraq was right. History may judge otherwise but, if 9/11 is any indication, it has also been known to repeat itself....despite the best and most sincere efforts of us all.
Sincerely,
I.M. Ulysses
No comments:
Post a Comment