I’m thinking about this war [the one in Iraq]. I doubt that any American alive in 2003 [outside of the White House] had any question that we were going to war for any reason other than 911 and the Terrorist attack on America. The stated reasons were Weapons of Mass Destruction and ties to the Terrorists. Gradually, we learned that there was another Agenda – spreading democracy by force [eg Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush Doctrine]. A month ago, President Bush said that the War in Iraq was the the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. I’ve been thinking about that statement every since then.
i·de·o·log·i·cal (  d – -l j  -kl, d-) adj.
|
I’ll admit to never understanding President Bush’s speeches when I read them. But this one is more obtuse than usual. It was popular in the past to see the Cold War as a struggle between ideologies – Democracy versus Communism. It was also used in World War II – Democracy versus Fascism. I’m not sure that either usage really worked. Both were more about power than ideology, but I get the point. I don’t even get the point here. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were no ties to Terrorists. Right now, there’s an Iraqi government of sorts – one we put in place, but they elected. The battle with Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship has been over for literally years. We’re not fighting Terrorists – at least not the ones we went to fight. The fighting in Iraq at this point seems to be about two things – they’re fighting us because we’re in their country and there’s fighting between two Islamic Sects for control of the country – a Sectarian Civil War.
What is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century? At least on paper, our ideology for America is Democracy and Freedom [something that’s being severly tested at this point]. The ideology of the people fighting us and each other in Iraq has something to do with religion – something of a Theocracy for Iraq. Is the ideological struggle Democracy and Freedom versus Islamic Theocracy? Are we in Iraq to fight to the death with Iraqis about Democracy versus Islamic Theocracy? Is that what he’s talking about? Because, if that’s what he’s talking about, they’re right. We’re at war with Islam.
But maybe he means something else and I just don’t get it…
Hi Mickey, you wrote:
“I doubt that any American alive in 2003 [outside of the White House] had any question that we were going to war for any reason other than 911 and the Terrorist attack on America.”
I remember quite a bit of discussion, even in 2002, about our (well, Bush’s) real motives. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a series called “Voices, The war debate” that included this passage:
“The feeling [in the Arab world] is that it’s about oil, oil, oil. The strategic issue for the United States is dominance of the oil fields throughout the Middle East and the destruction of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It’s a two-step thing. First you go to Iraq, which is a pretext to end the dominance of OPEC and the monopoly on oil prices and then to take control of the oil market.
“The consensus in the Arab street is totally against a war in Iraq. It’s totally different from the Gulf War.”
— Arabs Think Bush Driven by Oil, Not Terrorism, Jamal Dajani, interviewed by Jonathan Curiel, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, October 13, 2002
People I was talking to at the time were following the war talk with great interest and wondering why a number of things (including oil and personal revenge) were so seldom being (seriously) mentioned as motives for Bush’s war plans.
Good point. I recall those discussions too. I guess my point is that we accepted that 911 and Iraq were related back then. Now, it seems, they never were. 911, if anything, enhanced a preexisting PNAC agenda. Back then, I didn’t know PNAC from PicNiC…
Most of us were still stunned from 911, and incredibly naive about the sickness level in the White House. I sure was. I knew the War in Iraq was wrong, but I didn’t know the why of it…