Thoughts on the War in Iraq
(Warning: Incongruous Thoughts and Feelings Ahead)

I've been driving Christine crazy with my constant tuning into the war news. As much as I love the NCAA MBB Tournament, I've barely watched any of it. Instead, I've watched a lot of CNN and listened to a lot of NPR (or tried, through the radio hells of the NC mountains and rural TN, AR, and OK).

So, what do I think?

I'm conflicted.

Saddam Hussein deserves to go down. The UN hasn't dealt effectively with him. France (minus Bourdeax) can fall off into the Atlantic. I want our troops to win. And I'm annoyed with a lot of the press.

But I know the US can't claim the moral high-ground. We typically act unilaterally in our own interest, and our biggest interest is money, followed closely by power (which secures money). It's still the economy, stupid.

Kottke's right in a lot of what he says. We are not going to war for altruistic reasons. We've been a little bit honest about this. We've said we're protecting our people. We've couched it in terms of liberation, which is a nice secondary result. But, as many people have pointed out, there are lots of places where we don't get involved.

(I happen to think Kottke's being too cynical about this being principally an economic opportunity and I think the bad explanation thing is not the main point internationally. More on that in a minute.)

I've been assessing Bush these days, too. I heard a very interesting interview on NPR with Richard Brookhiser, the author of The Mind of George W Bush in The Atlantic Monthly. It was complementary in a lot of ways. Bush is decisive. Brookhiser described it differently, but I conclude that Bush really has principles that drive him and enable decision-making.

The problem is, I think his principles are too facile. I think they're too simplistic. I disagree with his perspective of what's best for America and our role in the world. Doesn't it boil down to domestic wealth and morals and international unilateralism? I'm not as hard on Bush as Kottke is. I'll give him partial credit for good intentions. But I think the results are largely the same.

Which brings up something else I read this week: the cover stroy of last week's Newsweek: Why the World Hates Us:The Arrogant Empire. America's unprecedented power scares the world and the Bush administration has only made it worse. This is the foremost reason, I believe, why other nations ahve not supported the disarmament of Iraq: they're trying to band together to put a leash on us. And I can't blame them. For years we were more benevolent. We encouraged alliances and diplomacy. Now Americans (by and large) are sick of diplomacy and the UN. But it turns out that the only thing worse than the UN and it's circus and inefficiency and the corruption of its nations is no UN at all.

Bush has not been interested in the world. He has not travelled. He wanted less foreign involvement. His major plank of foreign policy in the campaign was less 'nation building'. It reminds me now of the naive Jimmy Carter, thinking he could do things in Washinton a new way, without the politics. Didn't Bush think we could get by without the diplomacy?

After September 11th, now that we've got a war, the uninterested Bush has become the strong, hawkish Bush, aligning with conservatives who want to make the world safe for America (and it's corporations).

Clinton had no principles and couldn't decide. But I'll take his foreign policy any day.

After this war, President Bush and his Administration are going to find that they need diplomacy. They are going to find that they have a big hole to dig themselves out of. Just sending in the troops won't work (and I hope they don't have to go again, to N Korea or Iran or Palestine). I don't see us being able to get much done.

I don't see USAmericans caring, either. At this rate, we'll get four more years of Bush and a worsening international situation, probably with the UN just barely holding onto legitimacy, and NATO less-so.

Fareed's conclusion is powerful:

There are many specific ways for the United States to rebuild its relations with the world. It can match its military buildup with diplomatic efforts that demonstrate its interest and engagement in the world’s problems. It can stop oversubsidizing American steelworkers, farmers and textile-mill owners, and open its borders to goods from poorer countries. But above all, it must make the world comfortable with its power by leading through consensus. America’s special role in the world—its ability to buck history—is based not simply on its great strength, but on a global faith that this power is legitimate. If America squanders that, the loss will outweigh any gains in domestic security. And this next American century could prove to be lonely, brutish and short.

Further, I would say that eroding the goodwill of other nations, looking like a bully, will make our nation much less secure than any amount of defense spending can remedy. We can't failsafe national security. Better to invest in international goodwill.

This is something this administration has not done. The attacks of Septembet 11th cried for a change of foreign policy. They attacks were monstrous and worng. But they demand self-examination, not self-righteousness.