Headline Issues

President George W. Bush’s strident march to war against Iraq would not be taking place if not for the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Those attacks and their aftermath have unleashed a variety of emotional reactions among Americans and others: shock, outrage, frustration, even guilt and shame, plus a lingering sense of helplessness, anxiety, depression and fear. These reactions have all been compounded by an earlier anthrax scare and a month of sniper attacks in the Washington, DC, area, plus a recent increase in the color-coded terrorist alert system—with Americans stocking up on duct tape, plastic wrapping, bottled water, and the like. What all these emotions have in common, besides many translating into a thirst for revenge, is the need to reduce the intensity of the experience and to avoid other painful situations. Hence, the tendency for Americans and others to expect their political leaders to do something to reduce and avoid the threat of terrorist attack. The War on Terror is probably the first truly postmodern war, where “the Enemy” is not a traditional nationstate with a fixed territory and population, governed by an identifiable political leader. Instead, the people associated with the 19 young men who attacked us on 11 September are members of decentralized terrorist cells in many countries throughout the world.

Apart from the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime and destroy al Qaeda training infrastructure, the War on Terror has been very diffuse, irregular, and without closure. Despite the recent capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Pakistan, security forces still have not apprehended the “other guys” who did this to us. We do not even know if Osama bin Laden is dead or alive. For many Americans and others, therefore, the level of emotional upset and need for revenge have not been resolved by the War on Terror itself.

Enter a truly evil, ruthless despot: Saddam Hussein, a man who rules rough over his own people; has killed scores of Iraqi Kurds; invaded Kuwait in 1990 and subsequently, after the Persian Gulf War of 1991, attempted to assassinate President Bush’s father, former President Bush. Saddam Hussein is a political leader truly “made to order” for emotionally upset Americans who need a more traditional enemy to target with aircraft, missiles, tanks, artillery, infantry, and the like: all the weapons that are difficult to employ in many of the 60 countries where al Qaeda is rumored to be active.

Enter the “Fog of War.” President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Powell have successfully convinced a majority of Americans that a war on Iraq is a sensible component of the War on Terror, even though Saddam Hussein apparently had nothing to do with the attacks of 11 September or has any operational relationship with al Qaeda. He was not even supportive diplomatically, of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which U.S. “allies” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were.

Indeed, Pakistan—a nuclear armed state—is the location of the religious schools (madrassa) where the Taliban were created with U.S. support during the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Saudi Arabia is the major exporter worldwide of Wahabism: a more traditional (and for some, “more pure”) form of Islam. Wahabism informed the worldviews and identities of the 19 young men (15 of whom were Saudis) who perpetrated the acts of terrorism of 11 September 2001. It is also the basis for the beliefs and values of Osama bin Laden, himself a very wealthy Saudi. Ironically, the earlier spread of Wahabism was supported by the U.S. as a bulwark against the Shiite fundamentalism of post-Shah Iran.

The question arises: How has President Bush been able to succeed in convincing a majority of Americans and others (e.g., Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom) that a war against Iraq is a relevant component of the War on Terror?

Saddam Hussein is certainly evil, as he was when the U.S. supported him in his war against Iran during the 1980s. There is no doubt that he has chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. But unlike Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, he does not have nuclear weapons.

Still, Saddam Hussein is a truly negative character and, unlike the North Koreans whom President Bush has also included in the “Axis of Evil” designation, he is both an Arab and a Muslim (although not a fundamentalist). The 19 young men who perpetrated the 11 September attacks were also Arab and Muslim. In other words, there may be an element of stereotyping, “racial profiling” and even racism implied in the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq, as Iraqis “look like” the terrorists of 11 September 2001.

The Bush Administration has successfully argued that some of Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons may fall into the hands of al Qaeda, which may then use them against American targets. Curiously, the same case has not been made about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration has also convinced a majority of Americans that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are operationally connected: something that the French, Germans, and Russians, among others, continue to dispute.

Hence, against the background of the need for many Americans to achieve emotional closure on the 11 September attacks, Saddam Hussein seems to neatly fill the bill!

President Bush has recently gone further by arguing that his plans to conduct a major war against Iraq would lead to the democratization of Iraq and the Middle East, with implications for eventual peaceful relations between Israelis and Palestinians. We should not forget that Iraq possesses no nuclear weapons, has not threatened the U.S., and indeed has allowed UN inspectors to look for weapons of mass destruction on its territory. This stands in stark contrast to President Bush’s intention to use diplomatic means to deal with North Korea: a state with which the U.S. is still officially at war, which does have nuclear weapons, is starting up its nuclear weapons program, and has expelled its UN inspectors.

How might President Bush’s policies be perceived by the Russians, French, Germans, Arabs, and Muslims worldwide? He may indeed appear to be arrogantly and unilaterally leading the world’s sole superpower to war against a developing country for access to its vast oil reserves. Given that Iraq’s citizens are predominantly Arab and Muslim, how can that perception possibly lead to peace in the Middle East? Indeed, through the “law of unintended consequences,” a U.S. war on Iraq—much like Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s war against Palestinians—will probably have the opposite effect: a worsening of the Middle East conflict and of Western-Arab/Muslim relations in general.

U.S. Generals Wesley Clark and Anthony Zinni (and earlier Secretary of State Powell) have argued that a war against Iraq is likely to “suck the oxygen” out of the War on Terror. Post-Taliban Afghanistan is a sobering example: parts of the country outside of Kabul are already falling back into the hands of the warlords and elements of the Taliban. Afghan President Hamid Karzai ended his recent visit to Washington with a plea to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Don't forget us if Iraq happens.”

Given that Pentagon war plans call for dispatching some 3000 precision guided missiles and bombs to Iraqi targets, including in Baghdad, during the first 48 hours of the war, why are many Americans accepting what promises to be a very destructive war against civilians?

Perhaps President Bush is responding to the need for emotional closure on a national trauma, continuing felt helplessness and anxiety about the future. He is doing something to “those people” who “look like” the terrorists. This includes deploying thousands of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf for the war that now seems inevitable. A U.S. war against Iraq, involving the mobilization of thousands of reservists and national guardsmen and women from communities all across the country, is an excellent way to keep Americans who might otherwise be overwhelmed by fear and anxiety, focused on the same goals. War at this time may be the postmodern glue that holds Americans together, reinforced by the oldest maxim in the practice of politics: “When the natives are restless [because of economic and other problems], find an enemy and [threaten to] go to war!”

It is difficult for many Americans, emotionally and politically, to be critical of President Bush’s decision to go to war against Iraq because that decision involves the deployment of American troops. To criticize the decision is to imply a lack of support for men and women who might be in harm’s way, calling into question one’s loyalty and patriotism: the ultimate trap of the “Fog of War.”

A war against Iraq might well prove to be self-defeating. If Saddam Hussein succeeds in drawing the American and British forces into a “scorched earth,” street-to-street, house-to-house campaign in Baghdad with many casualties, Americans might wonder how this all happened. There could be severe political and other consequences for those held responsible.

A war is also likely to be self-fulfilling. Once the 3000 precision-guided missiles and bombs start to assail, destroy, and traumatize the people of Iraq, we should not be too surprised if Arabs, Muslims, and others in the developing world experience a sense of ethnic, religious, class and other kinship with the Iraqi victims of superpower aggression. This has real potential to establish the very operational ties between Iraq and al Qaeda that the U.S. claims already exist. It could also aggravate further the growing bipolarity between Western (Judaic-Christian) and Islamic Civilizations.

Indeed, the messianic zeal of the Bush Administration in preparing to go to war against Iraq certainly borders on a crusade. It appears not to matter to President Bush what the UN inspectors do or do not find, or if there is UN Security Council authorization or not. This stridency has been matched by what many assume is Osama bin Laden’s recent “civilizational rallying” of Muslims worldwide to help defend their Iraqi brothers against the “crusader enemy.”

Adding further to the complexity of the postmodern world, where preemptive war is the strategy of choice for the world’s sole superpower and therefore a “egitimate model,” imagine that one or both of the remaining members of the “Axis of Evil,” especially the nuclear-armed North Koreans, decided that they were next on the U.S. “hit list.” What then?

Despite his best intentions to the contrary, President Bush may have become one of the world’s most dangerous men.