But when the intent of US actions is to act militarily to manage oil prices from the Gulf, to the benefit of the US, it's hard to call it otherwise.
I disagree with your premise. Can you provide evidence to back up your claim?
And when that intent is backed up by an intent to topple a regime (yes, Iraq), what else would you call it?
War. The US has many strategic interests for wanting to topple Saddam. Of course, there are many countres where the US has a strategic interest in seeing a regime change. The difference between Iraq and the rest of these countries is simple. Iraq attacked Kuwait. America was allied with Kuwait. American went to war against Iraq to protect Kuwait. America won the war. Iraq sued for peace, signed a peace treaty and then never complied with that treaty and never accept the burden of peace.
Friedman makes a nice point when he says that the US could claim to be acting in the interests of the global economy if we coupled our Iraqi actions with other actions that reduced the demand for oil;
Friedman fails to make the case that reducing the demand for oil would be good for the global economy. It may seem self-evident to you but it is far from self-evident to me. In fact, most schemes to reduce the demand for oil seem likely to both fail and be economically harmful.
Actually, Paul, you are doing what you do all too frequently, you are jumping to conclusions.
By anti-American, I mean you assume that America is in the wrong. You assertion above that the American intent in the Gulf is to manage the price of oil. I consider this an anti-American (but not un-American) statement. Your suggested criterea for judging what you call American imperialsim, you fail to mention any interests, intents or needs internal to America. Again, this absence demonstrates an anti-American (but not un-American) attitude. I am not jumping to conclusions. I am simply taking you at your word.
The US has presented itself, however, as being above all this, as preparing the grounds for a new kind of state in the ME, one that is secular, democratic, and one that would use the oil resources for the Iraqi people. That's a very, very high bar to get across. It appeals to the US public, definitely. But is that what we will do? This particular administration has been very adept at doing one thing and saying another. We'll just have to see how they handle the Iraqi future.
This is the crux of the matter. In somewhat partisan language Ignatieff highlights the key challenge for America today, the trade-off between stability and democratic rhetoric. I would restate this as the percieved trade-off between economic self-interest and democratic commitment or narrow self-interest versus broad self-interest. For the past 60 years, the paradigm has been economic self-interest OR democratic commitment. I believe that 9-11 shifted the paradigm to economic self-interest AND democratic commitment. It is no longer acceptable to sell one out for the other. This is exactly the paradigm shift which I believe Bush made on the morning of Sept. 11.
This is no small change. The strategic, logistical and practical implications will take years to fully understand. It does mean peace between Israel and Palestine, a peace that gives both nations the hope of a successful future. It also means holding the ineffective UN to account for it's failures. In the end, it may mean pulling out of the UN. It will mean learning how to help Iraq build a successful democracy that can compete in the global economy.
To some degree Iraq is a simple problem. I am not at all sure how to inspire the notion of secular government in the Islamists world or how to inspire China to build a transparent and fair system of property rights. However, failure to achieve these goals will likely lead to civil war or (continued) tyranny and instability. It is a great big messy world and I am a glad that there is one country capable of providing leadership. I am confident that the false trade-off between narrow- and broad- self-interest is understood (although far from institytionalized).
Paul |
