 |
|
     |
|
|
By David Littlejohn and William K. Muir Jr. I became convinced that this country had made a radical turn for the worse during February and March of this year. It was then that the second Bush administration, while presenting its case for invading Iraq to the United Nations Security Council, also made it clear that U.S. forces were going to invade no matter what the Security Council decided. When it became evident that at least China, France, Germany, and Russia--no small part of the world we inhabit--were opposed to an immediate invasion, the nation's leaders decided to ignore the Security Council and go to war.  In the months since, as a result of subsequent events and my research into events that had taken place earlier, I have also grown convinced that this is the most dangerous administration in America's history. I do not think that this is a simple dispute between Republicans and Democrats. The "wrong turn" taken by the U.S. government since September 11, 2001 is far more fundamental than that. It has led this country to question, set aside, even abandon the ideals that once made it a model for other democracies. American values lately put at risk include individual liberty, justice based on the rule of law, fair and open proceedings, honest dealings between the people and their elected officials, and--two new ideals adopted after the world wars of the last century--international cooperation and a will to work toward world peace. In the days before, during, and after the war--if it was a war, and insofar as it is over--the Congress and citizens of the United States were given a series of reasons for the pre-emptive, unprovoked invasion of March 20. Each justification contradicted or conceded the falsity or shakiness of its predecessor. The American public's vision was blurred by a fog of conflicting misinformation, disseminated to justify an invasion that had been decided on well in advance. The first excuse for the invasion was that Saddam Hussein was behind the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11--an assertion no one has ever proven and that almost no serious observers believe. After that came a variety of claims regarding his weapons of mass destruction. The most cynical justification was broadcast primarily after the invasion. Saddam Hussein, we were told, is an evil man who has been mistreating his own people for 24 years. It was therefore only right and just for the United States to remove him from office by force, even if it had to devastate his country at a cost of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars to do so. The problem with this particular piece of propaganda is that the United States has never in its history invaded a country and displaced a dictator out of benevolent feelings for its oppressed people. In fact, this country has actively supported oppressive dictators--including Saddam Hussein--when such support was judged to be in its strategic interest. However, giving temporary support to a local dictator is considerably different from setting out to become a permanent global dictator yourself. One can trace the plan to topple Saddam Hussein and replace his regime with one friendly to the United States back to March 1992, when Dick Cheney, then Secretary of Defense to the first President Bush, circulated a report (drafted by Paul Wolfowitz, his undersecretary for policy) insisting that the United States must remain forever the world's sole superpower, and that any attempts by other nations to challenge or rival its primacy (or "to overturn the established political and economic order") must be quashed. This document was the first U.S. government statement I have seen that rejected America's honorable post-World War II doctrine of multilateral action, whether through the United Nations or other alliances, and set the tone for the dangerous policies and actions of this country of the past two years--in particular, the invasion and takeover of Afghanistan and Iraq, with very little thought given to the probable fate of these nations after an American attack. In their sabbatical from public office during the Clinton administration, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, and Lewis Libby helped form a group called the Project for a New American Century. Their founding statement called for increased defense spending in keeping with America's "unique role in preserving and defending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." In an open letter to President Clinton signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, and others dated January 26, 1998--more than five years before the actual invasion--the PNAC declared: "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action, as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. . . . American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the United Nations Security Council." By 2001, all these men were key members of the second Bush administration. Given a chief executive possessed of evangelical zeal, a sublime sense of self-assurance, no experience in foreign policy, and no patience with fine distinctions ("I don't do nuance"), they were now in a position to begin the New American Century. But, to jump-start the project, its advocates needed a shock that would galvanize the American Congress and people and oblige them to fall into line. The shock came on September 11, 2001. Since then, the kind of rhetoric that used to come from these imperialist ideologues has been coming directly from the White House, whose foreign policy they now effectively control. For the past two years, the President and his PNAC tutors have issued declarations of America's unique hegemony and omnipotence, condescending insults to the United Nations and NATO allies, and threats to anyone who dared to disagree with their positions. And, in these belligerent, unilateralist, America-first documents can be found the real reason for the March 20 invasion: No one but the United States (and its dependable partners) must ever be allowed to control the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. The mischief this administration is doing, under cover of the 9/11 threat, extends far beyond Iraq, and includes a radical erosion at home of the respect for law and liberty it pretends to be exporting overseas. Six hundred eighty prisoners taken in Afghanistan have been imprisoned for more than two years without the release of their names, submission of charges, or legal counsel. Kept out of the reach of American justice in steel-mesh cages in Cuba, they have been labeled "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war to keep them out of reach of international codes of justice as well. If they are ever brought to trial, it will be before secret military tribunals. If they are found innocent, the Department of Defense may still detain them indefinitely. Although none has yet been tried, President Bush has said, "All I know for certain is that these are bad people." The youngest was 13 when captured. In December 2002, the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued an order requiring all male visa-holders 16 and older from 24 predominantly Muslim countries to register with and submit to interrogation by immigration authorities. This has led to more than a thousand of them being imprisoned without charge or chance of bond for periods of up to a year. This sweep has so far yielded a total of 11 terrorist suspects. In June, the Justice Department's own Inspector General published a detailed complaint about the "unduly harsh, even abusive" treatment of many of these "detainees." I cannot help but be reminded of the confinement in desert camps of 110,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans in 1942-45. Meanwhile, Attorney General John Ashcroft is making use of the vastly increased powers of personal surveillance granted his agents under the USA Patriot Act, even in cases totally unrelated to terrorism. He is now pushing for an extension of these powers, to include a national DNA database of suspects and the right to override state laws and local police regulations. In July, Cal economist George Akerlof (our most recent Nobel laureate) said to a German interviewer: "I think that this administration is the worst in the more than 200-year history of the USA." Professor Akerlof was commenting primarily on what he regarded as the irresponsible fiscal policies of the administration, which he believes will bring this country's budget deficit to six trillion dollars by 2013. I agree with his assessment of the administration, but for philosophical rather than economic reasons. In their arrogant defiance of the rest of the world, the President's men have gone far beyond any conceivable political mandate, bending the United States in an uncivil and unnatural direction. The U.S. is no longer seen as a good citizen of the global community, but as a crude and dangerous bully. My family came to this country in 1830, and I have always been happy to consider it home. But I can no longer say "we" in referring to the United States government. I have no desire to see this country become the sole lawgiver of the planet, a more-than-Roman empire with the ability and will to pulverize any other nation or group of nations that dares to disagree with it, tries to build up its own arsenal, or establishes policies that threaten America's economic interests. Listening to the lies and learning of the deeds of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft/Bush administration--and doing nothing about it--I began to wonder whether I was behaving like a comfortably retired professor in Munich in 1932 who refused to care about the way in which his native land was being transformed. In the words of a former governor of Vermont: I want my country back. David Littlejohn '59 obtained his Ph.D. at Harvard in 1963, when he began teaching at Cal, first in English and then at the Graduate School of Journalism, where he taught for 29 years. He has written 13 books and more than 300 essays and reviews, including 130 reports on cultural events in the West for the Wall Street Journal. No. Has America taken a wrong turn in its response to a global, armed aggression by a covert, stateless network of hate-filled terrorists with designs on killing thousands of innocents? No. Rather, we've cooperated with willing allies, taking measured, effective steps to secure the safety of our people, stem further attacks, disrupt financing and training of terrorists, and begin the complex task of ameliorating the conditions that prompt persons to turn to terrorism. As should happen in a democracy, Americans have debated how best to defend against this unprecedented danger. The most vigorous disagreement has been over whether we should have removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq, despite Russian, Chinese, and French threats to veto U.N. authorization of his removal. On this issue, so far as I know, both supporters and critics of America's actions agree that Hussein invaded and plundered neighboring Kuwait, flaunted 17 U.N. resolutions, tortured and killed up to a million Iraqis (including annihilating entire Kurdish communities with poison gas), gave refuge to terrorists, refused to reveal the disposition of chemical and biological weapons and nuclear-weapon technology U.N. inspectors had found hidden in Iraq before Hussein forced them out in 1998, and that he would never have permitted international inspection of any kind without a threat of invasion. For some, like President Bush, these facts meant it was urgent to rid the world of Hussein before he did more harm. For others, like Professor Littlejohn on the preceding pages, they meant further diplomacy and economic sanctions were necessary, but did not justify invasion.  What's unsettling about Professor Littlejohn's stance, however, is the reasoning supporting his views. I understand the heart of his argument to be this: America attacked Iraq to secure its oil. A small cabal of Defense Department officials persuaded a feckless President to "pulverize" Iraq for "disagree[ing] with" us and "build[ing] up its own arsenal" to defend against our "imperialist" designs. To disguise the real goal of making America "a permanent global dictator," President Bush and his Pentagon cronies first accused Iraq of a connection to the destruction of the World Trade Center, then claimed Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, and finally declared that our intention was to liberate the Iraqi people from Hussein's "mistreatment." It's a theory full of conspiracy, dramatic enough to delight any Hollywood wannabe. It's also a cynical theory, if by cynicism is meant interpreting others' actions as coming from the worst motives. And, it's a theory that doesn't ring true. For if President Bush wanted to control Iraq's oil, all he had to do was lift our sanctions on the sale of Iraqi oil and buy it--and if Iraq wouldn't sell, buy it from competing suppliers. More fundamentally, it's a theory that ignores the vital differences between dictatorship and democracy, between a closed society (intimidated by a ruthless autocrat, utterly unaccountable to his people and acting to enrich himself) and an open society (whose president briefly holds office, is scrutinized by probing reporters and ambitious political competitors, and is daily held accountable for his actions by an educated public capable of terminating his political life). It's said that cynics know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Here's a theory that doesn't know the value of constitutional democracy. The President offered several cumulative reasons for removing Hussein now: 1) Hussein refused to comply with promises he made to the U.S. after his brutal aggression against Kuwait was defeated in 1991, and for the next 12 years he thumbed his nose at every resolution the U.N. passed to restrict his aggression; 2) America's show of military superiority against Hussein intimidates terrorists and especially their state supporters; and 3) Ridding Iraq of its insane tyranny deprives international terrorists of potential and actual resources necessary to their activities: refuge, money, sophisticated scientific and technical research, and "dirty weapons." By my lights, these three reasons justify ousting Saddam. But a fourth reason is, for me, decisive: Liberating Iraqis from tyranny and helping them build a constitutional democracy will begin to cure the Islamic world of humiliating impotence, centuries-long economic stagnation, and vengeful resentments that threaten the safety of civilization. This argument is problematic for some people, so let me elaborate on it. "It is presumptuous and insulting," argues President Bush, "to suggest that a whole region of the world--or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim--is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life"--to live openly and freely. Moreover, he points out, it's not the first time we have attempted to civilize a society poisoned by years of tyranny. We did so in Germany and Japan--with unprecedented benevolence and real success. Skeptics reply that whenever we have tried to civilize other societies by force we've invariably provoked unintended consequences. In fact, yesterday's high-handed efforts to "improve" the cultures of others (in Iran in 1953, for instance) have inspired anti-Americanism today. I disagree with this self-doubting diagnosis. The root cause of anti-Americanism today is this: A revolutionary, exciting, and unpredictable event is spreading throughout the world. People of virtually every nation (men and women, rich and poor) are being awakened to a democratic vision--democratic, not in the political sense of majority rule, but in the social sense that Thomas Jefferson intended in declaring that all individuals are "created equal," endowed with what he called "a moral instinct [enabling all] to feel and to succour the...distresses" of others. Today, thanks to the information revolution, no society can quarantine itself from this democratic virus, which infects and undermines older, autocratic traditions. In self-defense, autocrats resist these democratic sentiments from their seats of power as theocrats, party chairmen, and dictators of the proletariat, and stir their followers to resentment and hatred of the source and realization of this idea--America. Nevertheless, the impulse of human equality is afoot in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. It spreads because it makes sense to peasants, women, untouchables, infidels, underdogs, and the downtrodden everywhere. It animates them with new-found vigor and self-confidence. This socially democratic idea, that people universally have a personal capacity for empathy and benevolent self-direction--a "common sense"--has revolutionary implications. A socially democratic vision implies a minimal state whose only rightful task is assisting its people to accomplish what they want, not commanding them to accomplish what it wants. A socially democratic society improves itself not by indoctrination but by nurturing three vigorous institutions that elevate the purposes its individual members pursue--liberal, non-indoctrinating educational institutions that cultivate independent judgment, spiritual associations that commend human brotherhood, and responsible local governments that enlarge habits of social cooperation and individual initiative in citizens who participate. A socially democratic society prospers by invigorating people to work hard because they're working voluntarily at purposes they think personally valuable. (In contrast, autocratic societies, where commoners are deemed inferior to a superior ruling class, are marked by lethargy and ignorance.) Consequently, the economic gap between socially democratic and autocratic societies continuously widens; the talents of too many people go to waste in the latter. The urgent challenge is to give societies making this transition from autocracy to social democracy an understanding of the political and economic forms that can channel those democratic energies productively and peacefully--political checks and balances to control power, economic rules to make markets work fairly, and freedom of speech to neutralize official monopoly of the microphone. Without these mediating forms, newly democratic societies--from post-Revolution France to present-day Indonesia, Russia, and Bolivia--turn destructive, envious, and vengeful, often causing such wretchedness that their members eventually feel forced to surrender to a new autocracy to provide them personal security. (Those who want to think further on the dangers likely when the principle of equality triumphs, unmediated by civilizing forms, should see Amy Chua's World on Fire.) Hence, an excruciatingly difficult task is thrust upon us, that of carefully and patiently cultivating the habits and procedures of constitutional democracy in foreign soils. Undoubtedly, we will make mistakes in this task and, if and when we do, let us review our actions so as to learn lessons for the future--but let us do so respecting the good faith of those we disagree with. I wish thousands of innocent New Yorkers hadn't been murdered on September 11, 2001. I wish terrorists, enabled by jet-speed transportation and empowered with "dirty weapons," weren't intent on decimating civilization. I wish Congress could respond to its Constitutional duty of providing "for the common Defence" without having to tinker with any of the remarkable civil liberties we provide suspects during safe and peaceful times. But wishful thinking is public irresponsibility. And if, during this twilight time of waging war against stateless terrorism, concerned citizens believe a particular precaution has overreached and needs modification, I have no doubt that Congress and our independent judiciary will pay attention to their reasoned critiques and maintain the delicate balance between the claims of safety and freedom. Our political system has gotten good at that. A former chair of the Department of Political Science, William K. ("Sandy") Muir Jr. was educated at Yale and taught at Berkeley from 1968 to 1998. In 1983-85, he was a speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush. His books include The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan (1992). |
| |||||||||||
| About
CAA Contact
Us
Update
your Address CAA Career Opportunities Privacy Policy |
©2009 California Alumni
Association. All Rights Reserved For questions about CAA: info@alumni.berkeley.edu Technical inquiries: web@alumni.berkeley.edu
|
Alumni House Berkeley, CA 94720-7520 Toll-Free: (888) CAL-ALUM Phone: (510) 642-7026 Fax: (510) 642-6252
|
