[A-List] US imperialism: stakeholder analysis

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

War remains the option of first resort - not last

The US is by no means alone in conniving at conflict with Iraq

Simon Tisdall
Thursday February 27, 2003
The Guardian

The approaching Middle East convulsion is hardly an aberration. America has
been fighting wars all our lifetimes, from Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf to
Serbia, Afghanistan and now, again, in Iraq. Its wars have flared hot and
brief, as in Libya in 1986, Panama in 1989, and Somalia in 1992. They have
run cold and long, as in its 40-year global confrontation with the Soviet
Union. They have been fought by proxy, as in Angola and Mozambique, or
behind the scenes as in Lebanon and Cambodia. They have been waged covertly
as in Chile and Cuba, Nicaragua and El Salvador; or by invitation, as in the
current Colombian "war on drugs" and the Philippines leg of the "war on
terror".

The degree of offensive action ranges from punitive strikes, as in the
one-off cruise missile attack on Sudan in 1998 to massed, full-fig
firepower, as in Kuwait in 1991. A new departure came last autumn with the
CIA's unabashed, remote-controlled "hit" on alleged al-Qaida terrorists in
Yemen. But grand-scale or low-key, up-front or underhand, the threat or fact
of armed American intervention to reinforce its immense economic and
political leverage, while never absent since 1945, is now omnipresent in
today's unbalanced, unipolar world.

To be fair, US behaviour is hardly unprecedented in conception, if not in
scope. American presidents merely follow the example of earlier imperial
powers, most obviously the 19th-century British and French gun boaters whose
colonies, dependencies, satrapies and influence they have by stages usurped.
Like them too, self-deceptively perhaps but with more objectively convincing
reasons, the US also believes it acts for the greater good - to uphold
values and ideals such as democracy and free speech upon which the republic
was founded.

Viewed in this context, George Bush's warlike designs upon Iraq, North
Korea, Iran and beyond mark no exception to the established American or
indeed, the historical rule. Untroubled by any possible sense of paradox,
Bush vows to wage war against all of America's enemies "to secure the
peace". That this war, again in Bush's own words, will be continuous, global
and indefinite in duration is but a logical extension of a US pre-eminence
that came of age amid the ashes of Hiroshima. That the vaguely defined
"peace" for which Bush ostensibly strives may never actually arrive is
another logical deduction. America's ascendancy, if it is to be maintained
and extended, requires a constant readiness to fight.

Yet, for all America's preening, resented might, the US-driven Iraq
convulsion is only happening because others connive in it. All or nearly all
are complicit. Periodic, violent upheavals of this kind appear to constitute
a natural, even essential element in the human condition. From Marathon to
the Somme, from Agincourt to Austerlitz, around the world, war has been and
often remains an option of first resort, not last. War may not be desirable
in theory. War may be morally reprehensible. War may be hell. But as Hobbes
pointed out, it is a brutal constant to which a ritual obeisance is paid.

War exudes a terrible fascination. Exciting is not the right word. Perhaps
stimulating is, in the sense that Tennyson implied when he lauded "that
world-earthquake, Waterloo!" War enthralls and appals. It sets the blood
racing, the patriotic juices flowing, and the protesters marching. It
momentarily defines a confused, confusing world in welcome black and white.
It enables one "to take a stand". For ordinary people, unless the bombs are
actually aimed at them, it becomes a vicarious contest of winners and
losers, of heroes and villains. For political leaders, too, war is the
ultimate power-play, as seen again in last night's Commons "showdown". All
can play the war game. All look for advantage. And to this extent, Iraq is
not "America's war" at all. It is everybody's doing.

Take Iraq's immediate neighbours. All without exception are in theory
opposed to an attack; in practice, most will go along. For Turkey, haggling
to the last bazaar bean, war means a bonanza windfall of perhaps $26bn in US
assistance - and, perhaps, a chance to zap the Kurds. For Iran, more subtly,
it is an opportunity both to see off the old foe, Saddam, and build needed
bridges with the Great Satan.

For Jordan and Egypt, too, US guns and butter flow - $1bn apiece by some
estimates; nor do the Gulf states lag behind. Yet through the Arab League
they warn portentously of the unwisdom of conflict. Even Israel, keen to
bash the Baghdad bogeyman but asked to stand aside, parlays its
self-restraint into a wider argument for $12bn in US aid. This is money for
almost nothing; even better, it is payment for having others do what Israel
itself cannot. Oh, what a lovely war!

What holds true for the neighbours applies equally to non-permanent UN
security council members whose votes the competing principals covet - the
so-called "middle six". Angola, Cameroon and Guinea all signed up to Jacques
Chirac's recent African summit declaration supporting France. But in this
particular poker game, that merely raised the stakes. All three, like
Mexico, Chile and Pakistan, are now under enjoyable, potentially lucrative
siege from senior British, US and French diplomats. Expect more millions in
aid and credits to slide under the counter before the die is finally cast;
expect, too, more statements of principle about the evils of war.

The Iraq convulsion is playing out at many other self-incriminating levels
for which America alone cannot be held responsible. For many in Europe's
chancelleries, Iraq is but a tool for boosting a flagging self-esteem. For
Russia, Iraq is a chess game in which the pieces are old debts, future oil
interests and the Chechnya pawns. For China, such international upheavals
always have a financial bottom line. But Beijing's interest in establishing
the principle of legal, pre-emptive armed intervention and prolonged
occupation of somebody else's country will not be lost on Taiwan or, indeed,
on the Tibetans.

North Korea wants to play, too. Angry at being ignored in the current
excitement, and like a baby in a pram, it repeatedly throws its rattle on
the floor. Nobody has yet picked it up. When the Americans eventually do,
the war-dance may begin all over again. Japan, in consequence, talks of
building its own nuclear weapons, just in case. And so, from Hiroshima in
1945, we come full circle.

It is all connected. The historical continuum in which Iraq forms but an
episode is as inescapable as it is shaming. And in a sense, all are
culpable. The US march on Iraq is merely the latest, sick manifestation of a
world that for all its supposed modernity, remains addicted to war.
Humankind's self-destructive, self-interested apocalyptic urge is the real,
abiding enemy within. Beware that old Armageddon buzz. It's the thrill that
kills.