A Global Citizen Thinks About War
Published February 04, 2003
VI
Where does the U.S. administration fall among these choices? By my lights it is pursuing the war to maintain global economic stability (B), which for former oil company executives George W. Bush and his top advisers is tantamount to self-aggrandizement (D), while publicly justifying the aggression in terms of traditional American ideals (A). The most frequently implied of those ideals is that of the U.S. as the righteous redeemer of an evil world. Of course, rhetoric aside, no one believes that Gulf War II won't be just as much about preserving U.S. access to oil supplies as Gulf War I was. In that earlier desert excursion, you'll recall that the U.S. government's first explanation of the war's rousing purpose -"to save democracy in Kuwait" - was quickly dropped when the U.S. public realized no such thing existed.
VII
Between his candidacy and his presidency, George Bush changed his vision of America's role in the world completely. As a candidate he was isolationist, while as President he is aggressively internationalist under the banner of the war on terror. This complete reversal of position undermines the credibility of U.S. international actions, because it draws into question whether the we have the will to follow up military action with long-term support that builds friendships and creates new democracies.
Also, there is something in Bush's manner, and I am not the only one, that makes me doubt the sincerity of his podium rhetoric. His dropped g's, his fondness for cowboy metaphors, and his sly schoolboy demeanor, as if he were always about to towel-snap somebody, puts me off. He doesn't possess the personal gravitas to speak convincingly of great political ideals. To me the isolationism of candidate Bush sounded more genuine, more ardent, more convincing. Especially when compared to his privileged upbringing, during which he never showed much interest in foreign travel or exploring the world, his newfound passion for "helping others" rings hollow in the ear.
VIII
- A Global Citizen Thinks About War
- Published: February 04, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Doug McGill
- Doug McGill's BC Writer page
- Doug McGill's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Nice utopian worldview, oh citizen, so full of holes I can't address it here, I should start my own blog, I suppose. Go out and do a few of those things you suggest, and if that causes Saddam to step aside and let his people live their lives freely, and causes terrorists to stop attacking us around the world, I will say you are correct. You won't of course, and neither Saddam nor the terrorists will either. In short, great ideas on paper, not likely in real life. You may have all the benevolent goodwill in the world, but not everyone does, and those people mean harm to others like you.
It may be idealistic but I don't think it's utopian. The suggestion that we all try to be good neighbors is practical and idealistic at the same time, and is something we can all do to help.
Interesting analysis, and one I applaud in principle. However, it seems to me that the assumption that "this war is for oil" is necessarily a bad thing might be just a tad irrational. In other words, so it's about oil. So what? As a good friend of mine put it, "If you thought about it for a while, you might find one or two reasons to put a steady, guaranteed supply of petroleum as the second most important natural resource need in the world, but most likely, you'd have to put it right at the top of the list."
Surprisingly, the "humanitarian angle" still works admirably well even from this perspective. Not only do we liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator (which, by the way, is still a noble pursuit regardless of whether it is a primary casus belli.) but we at least partially secure the Arabian Peninsulaand all its vast oil reserves. Now when we do that, we guarantee that 1) Oil is available all over the world for direct concerns such as moving products to and from markets, thereby directly keeping world infrastructure alive, and 2) America's infrastructure is kept alive and working at a reasonable level of efficiency.
Now, the first point is self-explanatory, but the second, as self-serving (not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily) as it seems, also has a profound effect across the world. To wit: if the American economy is damaged, you can expect worldwide economic devastation. A dip in the stock market here gives brokers in London and Tokyo the cold shivers. A fluctuation in price here means people in our enormously affluent market quit buying quite so much, which means that folks in Venezuela experience untold economic hardship. People starve. Riots occur.
Now, as a global citizen, I view this little matter to be just as much a reason for action as any other. "No blood for oil?" Ha. Strategically guaranteeing that a madman can't choke off a significant part of the world's petroleum supplies, and that he can't destroy those reserves, AND that he can't indulge his expansionist tendencies to cover the Arabian Peninsula may be the most humanitarian approach we could possibly take.
Would you believe I'm not even a Republican? :)
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/3015)
Very thoughtful and balanced look at the most difficult topic of our time. I very much like your ideas on personal responsibility. Thanks!