|
George
W. Bush - Judge, Jury and Executioner
September 28, 2002
By Michael Shannon
Well, at least now we know.
Since the end of the Cold War there has stood an eminently
reasonable question posed by a number of boat rocking malcontents:
why do we continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars
a year to maintain and expand a military infrastructure that
was designed to defeat an enemy that no longer exists? It
was more than merely a valid question, it was evidently unanswerable.
And as each year passed the paradox of this enormous military
expenditure, flying in direct contradiction to the absence
of a credible threat, became increasingly obvious. Particularly
when it was repeated ad nauseam - ironically enough most loudly
by those who supported these gargantuan defense budgets -
that the United States had no intention of being the world's
policemen. So what were we going to do with all those supersonic
planes, a navy spread from one end of the globe to the other,
warehouses full of smart bombs and enough nuclear weapons
to end life as we know it?
The answer surely does not lie in that the US defense establishment
was preparing for the enemy of the twenty first century. As
we are all too painfully aware; that enemy hit us like no
enemy ever has and all our mountains of well polished weaponry
did not deter them in the slightest. So even in the midst
of our darkest grief the quest for an answer continued. That
is until just last week. It was then the Bush administration
released a document with the straightforward title of National
Security Strategy of the United States of America 2002
that answered the question with a degree of finality that
is breathtaking.
This document is an extraordinary piece of work and one which
clearly redirects the future course of American history. From
the moment of its release both friend and foe alike were on
notice - no longer would the United States be the reluctant
sheriff. Now we would act as the self-appointed judge, jury
and executioner.
This willingness to not only fully commit the armed forces
of the United States in the machination of global geo-politics
but to make the decision to so do based on unilateral interests
if deemed necessary is at once a radical departure from our
historic modus operandi as well as an evolutionary development.
On the latter point, it is rather amusing that so many have
suddenly taken to accusing - or congratulating, depending
on your perspective - the US of being an empirical power.
While the United States may not be a conqueror in the classical
sense of the word - taking over directly the administration
of captured lands and peoples - we have shown no hesitancy
over the course of the past seven decades to establish permanent
military bases at locations of our choosing. Paul Kennedy,
writing in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, makes
note that in 1985 the US had over 520,000 troops stationed
around the globe, far more than the British ever had at the
height of their empire. And ten times more than Imperial Rome
ever dreamed of.
While the number of troops the United States has on station
around the globe may in fact be somewhat lower today, the
lethality of the firepower at their command has increased
exponentially.
Likewise, it is the rules of engagement by which this power
will now be wielded that the Bush administration has so drastically
altered. With the exception of small scale operations - Panama,
Grenada - the United States has been loathe to initiate hostilities
with a foreign power. Even in those instances where the US
was itching to get into the fight - a century ago against
the Spanish in the Caribbean and Pacific, and much more recently
against the communist insurgents in Vietnam - they waited
until such time as a reasonable believable provocation occurred.
Mr Bush has summarily dismissed the need for any such niceties
and declared that ill intentions alone are now grounds for
a massive military strike.
The second and equally startling change is in the announced
willingness of the United States to go it alone in its pursuit
of perceived threats to its interests. And not only is this
policy shift noteworthy so too is the manner in which it was
unveiled. For Mr Bush to call the United Nations irrelevant
is the epitome of sophistry, for if there is but one reason
why the United Nations has lost its effectiveness, it is that
the United States - the strongest, richest, most powerful
member nation - also happens to be the most delinquent in
meeting its financial obligations and most narcissisticly
self-indulgent in its selective use of the General Assembly
and Security Council.
In short, the government of the United States only respects
and support the decisions of the UN when they are in direct
accordance to its wishes. If they are not, we not only ignore
them but we belittle them. That the nation who served as the
driving force behind the conception and realization of this
organization whose primary function is "to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war" has reduced its contribution
to dismissive scorn of its once noble crusade should cause
every American a deep sense of shame.
And finally there is the pronouncement that the United States
will not permit any nation or alliance of nations to garner
greater military power than its own. How easily this declaration
can be interpreted to mean that any effort by a nation to
build up its defense to forestall American action will only
succeed in speeding up the eventuality of such action, will
remain to be seen. But that it will be used as a justification
for those to whom we may wish harm to double their efforts
to arm themselves - with the very weapons we are so rightfully
in fear of - is of little doubt.
This proclamation sets the United States down a treacherously
slippery slope. The taste for conquest has not only long since
proven itself to be intoxicating, it often becomes reason
unto itself for further conquest and conflict. Russian Imperial
Chancellor Prince Gorchakov is quoted in the excellent, and
never more relevant than today, book, The Peace to End
All Peace by David Fromkin, in referring to the impulses
of colonial powers: "all have been drawn into a course where
ambition plays a smaller role than imperious necessity, and
the greatest difficulty in knowing where to stop."
In other words. the more possessions a nation holds under
its command, the harder it must work to maintain and defend
them. This tendency to overreach has proven to be the death
knell for every imperial power in history. That it will prove
no different for the United States is virtually pre-ordained.
Contact Mike at shnnn613@cs.com
|
