Life in Gestalt

Palliative Politics

THROUGH A LOOKING GLASS

Governments of the United States have been unfailingly consistent in responding to any threats to its supremacy, actual or perceived. There is a pretense of dialogue when it is necessary to build 'consensus' or support from its domestic constituency as well as from its traditional European allies; a statement of the 'moral high ground' which makes it incumbent for it to act in behalf of the 'world community of nations'; and ultimately, its anticipated military response allegedly founded on widespread international acceptance. While these actions have been frequently found as illegal uses of force under international law, it is of no moment to a country regarding itself as the 'remaining superpower' after the end of the Cold War. (And incidentally, accounts for much of its economic growth in the past half-century to large-scale arms transactions even with allegedly 'truculent' or 'renegade' states with less than perfect human rights records.)

Small wonder, therefore, that after Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, and Vietnam, most of us are NOT surprised about US tactics on Iraq.

This 'impending war' with Iraq is awash with double standards, a product of palliative US politics that has become the norm in this decade. It is conventional warfare in all its senses and effects. It does not recognize that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will not be contained nor quelled with the forcible removal of an intransigent head of state. It does not foresee that the upsurge in domestic military expenditures is merely a temporary push on domestic consumption and economic growth. It does not anticipate that support from the population of the state subject of the war will not lie with the aggressor causing rampant destruction in their lives, liberties, and properties.

It refuses to see that Iraq is not another Afghanistan.

One can certainly appreciate the anguish of the American people following the 9/11 tragedy. But inasmuch as the deaths of thousands of American citizens were broadcast worldwide, the media coverage was inversely proportional with respect to the citizens of Iraq. For the past decade, Saddam Hussein has been the enemy, and this does not yield argument from most international observers or even casual CNN or BBC spectators who have been following the perspectives of media commentaries.

The United States' solution to 'evil' dictators is atypically Hollywood. Send in the troops, take out the leader and 'liberate' the suffering citizens.

Real politik, however, is not as straightforward an equation. The long years of suffering of citizens of Iraq due to the unquestionable stupidity of economic sanctions has alienated that critical mass who should clamor the right to exercise their self-determination and therefore seek the aegis of international protection. Inasmuch as the United States probably hoped for an overthrow all these years similar to the case of Milosevic, they have made it impossible for the citizens of Iraq to trust them enough to seek revolutionary or peaceable recourse.

Whatever predictions as to the immediate result of this stalemate will be as varied for political analysts as well as media pundits. The only certainty is that the United States will NOT have 'won' the war to defend and advance their ideas of democracy in the free world by attempting to militarily impose it, under the guise of benevolent protection of Iraqi citizens from a leader cunningly playing his cards and learning from the patterns of US consistency.

Posted by Angel Fidelis at October 22, 2002 11:00 AM