Pineland Journal: Smith, Jones, and War on Iraq -- 2
Jones is a fast-track Special Forces major who took time out from his schedule of intensive war preparation to join the panel at a local college. Trim and articulate, he had been president of his class at West Point; quoted Clausewitz at every opportunity, and stayed on message, offering no comment at all when I again presented my civilian casualty calculus as an objection to a new war. Instead, Jones preferred to talk about the coming war itself, which he was positively eager to see begin.
For him, Smith’s modulated claim of a favorable outcome for the Iraqis was far too modest: this war, Jones enthused, would be a tremendous boon to all mankind, the golden door to peace, democracy and prosperity, not only in the currently turbulent Middle East region, but for as far as the eye could see. It would even, he believed, push the Israelis and Palestinians to the brink of a rapprochement.
My initial challenge to this scenario was to brandish a sheaf of articles and statements by generals, intelligence analysts, diplomats, political conservatives and even Republican donors, all decrying the plan as foolhardy and dangerous to American interests. The "Peace Hawks and Un-Usual Suspects" I called this unlikely band. The kicker was the January 13 full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal placed by a group of corporate CEOs who had backed G.W. Bush in 2000 but oppose the Iraq war and were now demanding, "We want our money back. We want our country back."
The willingness of all these people to go public, I contended, showed there is a real debate over the wisdom of this plan underway that crosses party and political lines, even though it has been largely ignored and marginalized by the administration.
Jones’s response was patronizing and dismissive; the debate was great, he said; it showed America at its best. But it was also over, because we were going in, and soon, and a good thing too.
When a questioning student saw the specter of a new American imperialism in his pronouncements, Jones was trigger-quick with denial: No way – the US did not intend to "plant the flag" in Iraq or anywhere else. Of course, this rejoinder was quickly challenged; yet cries from me and others that imperialism could take other forms than formal colonization did not faze him.
We would soon bomb our way into Iraq, Jones agreed, but would then march in as liberators, not "overlords." He confidently predicted that the Iraqis (those who survived, I griped) would be greeting the 82d Airborne with cheers and flags, and it was evident Jones didn’t intend to miss out on the party. While he did acknowledge that we’d need to be involved there for awhile, to ensure its proper transition to an acceptable version of democracy, the terms "occupation" or "colonialism" could in no way be attached to these outcomes.
Very well, then; I said; what’s in a name? Though "imperialism" is now being used openly and without apology in such establishment journals as the New York Times Magazine. But if it must be a blood-red rose (or cruise missile) by some other name, what then to call the enterprise our rulers are about to launch?
Where to look for an answer was suggested by a religion professor. He named the association of the present leadership with politicized fundamentalism, which sees in the current struggle the latest and possibly most ominous locale for its end-times biblical preoccupation. This was, the professor opined, a very hazardous combination.
But Jones was having none of it. He hadn’t, we were informed, seen Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson at any of the policy conferences or seminars he’d recently attended with various policy wonks and high-mucky-mucks. Those in charge–he was now slightly indignant--were not religious fanatics, but very smart, rational people, making thoughtful, clear-sighted decisions. End of story.
Such political and cultural naivete was touching, even if it was not to be taken seriously in a person who undoubtedly knows how to spell the word "Ashcroft." There are, major, more policy conferences in Washington than those you were invited to. In any event, the light dawned and an alternative to the dreaded "imperialism" was rolling off my tongue:
"Messianic Hegemonism." That is, the US is not out to conquer Iraq (and the world), but to bring it salvation, in the form of our "values," especially democracy (as long as they learn to vote for the right sort of democrats, who among other things won’t mess with our control of their oil.) That’s the messianic part.
And we’re bringing them this salvation even if they didn’t ask for it, and not counting how many of them we’ll have to kill to deliver it. Which is the "hegemonic" part.
I argued that this program was a recipe for permanent wars, loss of civil liberties and ever-deepening militarization of our society, which would (among other things) likely force the return of the draft, even though Rumsfeld and the White House don’t want it: the world is simply too big to manage with the army we have or are likely to get without it. (Cf. North Korea, et al.)
Jones sneered at this, saying the army "could not afford" the draft. This was a curious response from one who has argued in print for doubling the military budget, and seems confident that we can afford an endless convoy of new high-tech, astronomically-priced weapons.
Okay, so "messianic hegemonism" doesn’t have the sound-bite ring of "Axis of Evil." But the religion professor chuckled and agreed, as did some of the other panelists. Jones shrugged it off, as I expected. But I knew I was onto something when he went on to set the Iraq crusade in the context of the National Security Strategy document issued by the White House last September. Unlike earlier such documents, Jones said, this one was a very "big picture" manifesto, worldwide in scope and combining the advancement of our values with the determination to thwart any challengers to our preeminence."
Advancing our "values" while protecting our preeminence? Aha! I had him cold.
