Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
We Can't Do It Without You!  
     
Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives
   
 
   Featured Views  
 

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
 
 
It's Amateur Hour for Administration Hawks
Published on Friday, August 9, 2002 in the Seattle Times
It's Amateur Hour for Administration Hawks
by William Pfaff
 

PARIS — George W. Bush is talking himself into a position where he will have to go to war, even though there is no convincing argument that war would be good for the United States, or even good for the president.

The military are certainly not convinced that war is a good idea. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff have made that clear through a series of leaks to the press. They are wary of a war whose objectives — beyond Saddam Hussein's overthrow — remain murky, and for whose aftermath no serious policy exists.

Generals, of course, are always reluctant to go to war. They know what Hitler knew, who said that every war "is like opening a door into a darkened room. One never knows what is hidden in the darkness." Soldiers pay for what may be behind that door.

Generals are against war, but amateurs are for it. Who among the neo-conservative polemicists and op-ed writers baying for war against Saddam has personally spilled blood, or seen it spilled, or even heard shots fired in anger?

Few were anyplace but in an office, a graduate school (or grade school) or a stateside National Guard billet during the Vietnam War.

The leading hawks in the administration made their records as Defense Department bureaucrats. Donald Rumsfeld was a peacetime naval flyer, but the only administration heavyweight who has actually fought in a war is Colin Powell, and he is the Bush administration's leading dove.

The hawks' scenarios of rebuilding a defeated Iraq (or Iran, and now Saudi Arabia) — "just as we rebuilt a democratic Germany and Japan after the second world war" — reek of amateurism and ignorance of what actually went on then, and during the war, in Germany and Japan.

That coven of hawks, the Defense Department's Policy Board, presided over by Richard Perle, last week was briefed by the hitherto unknown Laurent Murawiec of the Rand Corporation.

He told them that Saudi Arabia is America's enemy, fosters terrorism "at every level in the terror chain," is "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent" of the U.S. in the Middle East. He recommended that the U.S. issue an ultimatum to the Saudi government to "stop all anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli statements in the country" — a preposterous demand — or see its oil fields and overseas financial assets "targeted."

Henry Kissinger, the intelligent member of the Policy Board, was the only one to demur, refusing to speak of the Saudi Arabians as strategic adversaries.

Law doesn't come much into amateur discussions since it is taken for granted that the United States — given (as the president said) "how good we are" — is justified in doing pretty much as it pleases.

This administration seems to regard the United States as exempt from the laws of war and from the traditional norms gov-erning just and unjust war. These have only philosophical or moral authority, but were taken serious in American government as recently as the 1950s and 1960s in policy debates (at the Rand Corporation, among other places) over nuclear war.

The norms of just war rest on the principle of proportionality in the use of violence, and ask not only whether the war is politically justified, but whether the harm it will do is proportionate to the good that can reasonably be achieved.

Is war the sole and necessary means to a just goal? What is the disposition of those conducting the war: to do good with a minimum of harm? Or to aggrandize their own and the nation's power and standing at the expense of the lives or legitimate claims of others?

The Rand Corporation used to wonder about such things. It would be much better for Rand's reputation as an intellectually responsible organization to send briefers on just war to Washington, rather than promoters of aggressive war and international illegality.

However, a measure of consolation for what the Bush people are up to can be sought in what Walter Lippmann once wrote: "A policy is bound to fail which deliberately violates our pledges and our principles, our treaties and our laws. The American conscience is a reality."

William Pfaff's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.

Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company

###

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article
 
     
 
 

CommonDreams.org
Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community.
Independent, non-profit newscenter since 1997.

Home | About Us | Donate | Signup | Archives

To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.