zenpundit.com

Akuniyo describes American policy as “paranoia-based.” Perhaps the future

will validate this description. Most Americans, however, to one degree or

another agree with Bush’s assumption that the U.S. is engaged in a war with

clandestine groups and a small number of “rogue states.” The major fear is

that these two might get together and deliver a devestating strike on the

United States.

Is this paranoia? In the past twenty years hundreds of American servicemen,

diplomats, agents, businessmen, tourists and bystanders have been killed or

maimed by the forces of what Christopher Hitchins so accurately calls

“theocratic fascism.” In the past decade there has been a serious attempt to

bring this violence directly to U.S. The attacks of 9/11 were preceeded by

an earlier bombing of the World Trade Center. American agents confinscated a

van filled with explosives crossing the Canadian border prior to New Years

2000. And to sweeten the mood in the U.S., North Korea has recently

suggested that it might export atomic weapons.

Other nations in the industrial world can hope that conventional

deterrence and better police work can prevent or greatly limit further

terrorist catastrophes. Washington must look at the situation differently

because American leaders believe that if deterrence fails it will be the

citizens of an American city that will pay the price. This perception

makes “risk assessment” a much more complex enterprise in Washington than

in, say, Brussels.

Akuniyo also argues that Americans should have “an intelligent loyalty to

the same moral code that states expect their own citizens to live by.” With

all due respect this exactly what American citizens do not want. In the

pursuit of terrorist groups, most Americans fully support the Bush

administration’s policy of “gloves off.” In practice this means a massive

and expensive clandestine operation headed by CIA in collaboration (often

through bribes) with any government that wants to help out. We have

assassinated small numbers of bin Laden’s group and no doubt would kill more

given the chance. The police powers of the FBI and others have been

increased in the U.S., and American police agencies previously discouraged

from working abroad now do so very openly. Civil libertarians in America may

complain bitterly about all of this (perhaps with reason), but these actions

appear to be broadly supported by the American population. The blows

seemingly given to bin Laden’s operations in the past year are viewed as a

vindication of this approach. Now, if one views the U.S. as in a war, the

government’s response is understandable, even laudable. If the struggle

against terror is viewed as an exercise in normal diplomacy then America,

not bin Laden (or Kim Jong Il) is the threat to world peace.

We must also consider the wars fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. The first

received more governmental support than the second, but was fiercely

opposed by “progressives” throughout the West. (This fact has been

conveniently forgotten by many when the Taliban fell with so little

effort.) Recent hostilities in Iraq found the U.S. nearly isolated in the

world public. I have recently argued that it is far too early to judge the

impact of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. However, although the violence

of that war was far less than many of its opponents predicted, and the

fall of Saddam appears to be little mourned in Iraq (regardless of how

Iraqis view the U.S.), the moral ambiguities inherent in war were well

illustrated. Akuniyo notes that “It is understandable and obvious why the

leader/ general/ soldier/ industrialist don’t want to live by any code –

particularly ones that could hang them tomorrow for what they do today.”

In general I suppose this is true. It certainly explains why no American

Senate is going to ratify the ICC. There are already attempts in Belgium

to indict Rumsfeld, Franks and others. The Pentagon believes that the

“higher moral standards that are naturally emerging in a connected world”,

observed by Akuniyo, and embraced by many in the industrial world, cannot

be made to suit a fierce world.

It seems to me that many citizens of the industrial world would like the

U.S. to be the friendly cop on the block that will do nothing unless called

upon to redress some obvious wrong that the remainder of the industrial

world is too weak to deal with. Have trouble with “ethnic cleansing” in the

middle of Europe? Call Washington. If North Korea begins to act the thug,

nations in the region know that American forces are there to keep things

from getting out of hand. In other words, American power is useful if it

accords with the interests of other nations. If Washington dares to employ

its power in what it perceives to be self-defense, and by doing so raises

risks to other countries, then the U.S. is viewed as “power-drunk.”

I do hope that America’s opponents in the democratic world have no illusions

about some great change of perception taking place inside the U.S. Even

Bush’s opponents on Iraq fully support the “war” against terrorism. The

prestige of U.S. military is sky high and will stay there. The sense of

threat against the American homeland will remain for a very long time.

Another major attack within America will cause a furious reaction.

There are obvious ways to deal with this problem. If the world is genuinely

evolving toward a golden age of universal morality, I would strongly urge

nations now affiliated with America to end their security associations with

Washington. If the peoples of Belgium, or France, genuinely think the U.S.

is a threat to world peace, then NATO should be abolished. If North Korea

(or China) is no threat to Japan, then end the defense treaty with the U.S.

Or, if countries are not so sure that military power has lost all utility,

and if these same nations view America as “immature and selfish” in its

exercise of power, then perhaps these nations should create an independent

ability to project military power. The industrial world outside the U.S.

certainly has the wealth and technology to match fully the Pentagon’s

arsenal in a very short time. All that is lacking is the will. Then perhaps

other, more enlightened governments, can determine how to fit liberal values

and an increasingly expansive interpretation of international law with the

brutal reality of modern war. ”