|
|
|
January 18, 2004
Review: The failure of pre-emption
THERE has been a spate of writings criticizing or questioning the unilateralist approach that has characterized the Bush foreign policy. The intellectual elite of the world has equated this approach to the return of imperialism based on brute force. The application of the US doctrine of pre-emption to justify the use of overwhelming force to bring about regime change in Iraq without UN endorsement has produced reactions that range from anxiety to outrage. Here we have a book authored by a well-known British writer and polemicist settled in the US who defends the war on Iraq.
Hitchens has written books on Cyprus, Kurdistan and Palestine, and co-edited a publication with Edward Said, who was a reputed liberal and an eloquent advocate of the Arab cause in the Middle East. Hitchens calls himself an ardent supporter of those opposed to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He argues that you do not have to be a conservative to back “regime change” in Iraq. He also questions the characterization of the foreign policy of the Bush administration as unilateralist, maintaining that every nation acts unilaterally when its own interests are involved, while a multilateral approach is inevitable when decisions are taken that affect a large number of states.
The various chapters of the book deal with political issues under debate, after an introduction, written just before the start of the war, in which the author assembles the arguments in favour of a war against Saddam Hussein. These include the desire of millions of Iraqis in exile for an end to this hateful and barbarous regime, to enable them to return home. He refutes the allegation that US policy on regime change is dictated by Israel, and expresses doubt that Iraq will become a quagmire after being attacked, since that did not happen after military intervention in Serbia or Afghanistan.
Each chapter, based on an article written on dates that are in sequence, takes up a specific objection to the proposed war on Iraq, and seeks to dismantle it. The chapter titled “Machiavelli in Mesopotamia” tackles arguments against the choice of Saddam Hussein’s regime, recalling his past services to the US, as well as the suggestions that there are better justifications for regime change in other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, from where most of the 9/11 terrorists originated. He cites the rising tide of resistance to Saddam’s brutal dictatorship within Iraq as the main justification for its choice. Not only would regime change win the support of the multitudes opposed to Saddam, it would also bring political and strategic benefits.
Taking up the argument that most of the vocal support for the war on Iraq is coming from civilian leaders in the Bush administration, such as Messrs Cheney and Rumsfeld, he proceeds to debunk it by recalling their patriotism and past record, while critics of the idea, like former President Carter had built up Saddam by launching him against Iran. His write up on “terrorism” deals with the argument that Iraq has no direct link to Al Qaeda.
He defines terrorism basically as irrational violence, of which Saddam has been guilty throughout his years in power. His piece on “anti-Americanism” takes up the variety of attitudes critical of America, originating at home and abroad, as well as from leftists and rightists. Though many Americans indulge in denigrating their country, and there is widespread envy of America’s power and affluence in the world, the US enjoys a high standing because it symbolizes pluralism, and democratic values.
In succeeding articles/chapters, he takes up other expressions and themes being used in the debate over the war in Iraq, especially by those who are critical of the unilateral approach of the Bush administration. The insistence of many countries on “inspection” to verify possession of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) by Iraq is not considered justified, taking into account the whole history of Saddam’s regime, and the compelling nature of arguments in favour of regime change.
Not only the majority of the people of Iraq but also the neighbouring countries want his regime to go. What is being called “pre-emption” is really not aggression but prevention. He also proceeds to debunk the use of the expression “cowboy” in describing the personality of President Bush, and insists that if the word “imperialism” is used to describe the policy of the United States, a distinction needs to be made whether that superpower’s domination is malignant or benign.
Hitchens’ evaluation of the role of some countries that are critical of the Bush approach is polemical in nature. In an article entitled “The rat that roared” he writes with contempt for President Chirac of France, comparing him to Petain and calling him a “pygmy” successor to Charles de Gaulle. He calls Turkey an “an ally we are better off without” and recalls its recourse to murderous violence in Kurdistan, Cyprus and Armenia.
The concluding chapters, written after Iraqi resistance had collapsed, reflect the author’s personal happiness that forecasts of a prolonged war did not prove right, and that the Shias and Kurds, who constitute the majority of Iraq’s population, were highly pleased with the outcome. However, Mr Hitchens may be having egg on his face in view of the way the evolution of events has belied his optimistic expectations from “regime change”, and cast doubts on the validity of the doctrine advocated by the neocons around Bush.
During the six months since May, US casualties have exceeded those incurred during the conflict. The two main protagonists, Bush and Blair, have been in the defensive as no WMDs have been found, and they are being accused of tampering with the truth to justify the attack on Iraq. With elections pending in the US, the popular mood has changed in favour of getting out of Iraq, as the cost in blood and treasure is not acceptable. President Bush has decided to speed up the transfer of power to the Iraqis, with Iraqi police and military assuming responsibility for internal security.
The American public is also unhappy over the economic consequences, as well as the growing unpopularity of their country in the world. The toll in casualties has risen as the number of daily attacks on Coalition forces has crossed thirty. The Iraqi resistance looks more like a national response to foreign occupation, in which US backing to Israel’s brutal policies has played a part. The quagmire Hitchens did not expect has materialized.
More seriously, the Coalition leaders and commanders now concede that international terrorists have found a haven in Iraq after the regime change. Some of his passionate arguments, denigrating critics of the war policy, sound hollow and lacking in objectivity. The march of events in Iraq exposes the negative implications of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, which was tried for the first time in Iraq, after it was defined in the National Security Strategy Paper issued in September 2002. This brief book has relevance mainly as an expose of the arguments in favour of a policy that has since been discredited.
Regime Change
By Christopher Hitchens
Penguin Books. Available with Paramount Books, 152/O, Block 2, PECH Society, Karachi-75400
Tel: 021-4310030.
Email: paramount@cyber.net.pk
ISBN 0-141-01567-5
104pp. Rs345
|
|
|
|
