Current policy means long-term conflict

Thursday, July 31, 2003 - by Peter Golden

Whether Iraqi resistance to American occupation is a function of enduring nationalism, religious opposition or the last strategic gasp of Saddam's Republican Guard is a moot point.

While the Iraqi people struggle to come to terms with American regime change, we must adjust to the fact that we have entered into a long-term relationship with a people that in large part stand in opposition to our very existence.

What do Americans think—that a dictatorship perched atop a well-established and rationalized political party (the Baathists) can be displaced in a month or two? Is it possible that Iraqis and the nations, political parties, religious sects and ethnic groups that make up a region so thoroughly at odds with itself and the West can be reconciled to an American agenda overnight? Hardly.

Recently, more thoughtful observers of the War on Terrorism have turned their attention to the appropriateness and style of the occupation itself. The political cultures and economic condition of Germany and Japan at the end of World War II are cited as benchmarks against which one can measure America's actions in Iraq.

Other commentators dwell on the political history of the region, especially the British experience. It was, after all, T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, who at first intrigued against the Turks while accommodating the various clan and dynastic ambitions that in part gave rise to the current map of the Middle East. Britain, like nations before it, became mired in the shifting sands of Arab nationalism and hatred of the infidels.

Another discussion focuses on our experience in Afghanistan and estimates of al Qaeda's numerical strength and tactical capabilities. The range is astonishing, with one journalist stating 90 percent of a relatively low number of trained cadres—about 20,000—as still operative, while a member of Congress tosses out the mind-boggling thought that somewhere between 70 and 120,000 al Qaeda were trained in the Afghan camps and are still largely operational.

Thus, the argument goes, Iraq is the wrong target, preoccupying us with nation building while al Qaeda terrorists lie in wait to strike again. Such a prospect is too risky to dismiss out of hand, our ostensible successes in the War on Terrorism notwithstanding.

While the media focuses alternately on the blood sacrifice that accompanies this and any war—the nightly pictures of our troops killed in the line of duty are heartbreaking—another conflict plays itself out in a different arena. Putting our unilateral actions in Iraq over the strenuous objections of much of the rest of the world aside for a moment, how can America represent itself as a champion of freedom when its domestic agricultural subsidy programs guarantee that cash crops of peasant farmers around the globe are priced out of the markets?

Europe and Japan play this game as well, but I suspect none with as much gusto as our national legislators, who, under the rubric of "preserving family farms and ensuring the sweat of one generation's brows is not lost to its children" pass tens of billions to large corporate agriculture interests in the form of "farm support."

This wrong-headed policy is further compounded by the conflict surrounding genetically modified crops, which denies growing options to subsistence farmers in countries where their use might well make the difference between sustenance and starvation. One hopes the current round of negotiations soon to recommence under the auspices of the World Trade Organization will inject some fairness into the situation and give some relief to those who deserve it.

At the same time, we must observe our current version of grand strategy in Iraq and its inherent limitations, especially with reference to that strange commodity in which we have no interest whatsoever, at least according to the Bush administration. Even with the world's second largest proven reserves of oil, about 300 billion barrels, Iraq's supply, like that of the rest of the world's, will soon run out.

Were the Chinese, who now rely mainly on coal, to precipitously decide to move to an oil-based economy, global competition for scarce supply would create enormous conflict. Current U.S. policy supports the three-legged stool of Wall Street money, Detroit wheels and Houston energy. Hydrogen fuel pipe dreams aside, no coherent energy policy appears to be in sight.

So what's next? Are we fighting terrorism, socking it to non-U.S. farmers or securing oil supply?

In other words, whether engaging in regime change or maintaining current agricultural subsidy policies, a case can be made that the Bush administration is acting on behalf of large, traditional corporate interests at the expense of you, me and the poor folks trying to feed their families on subsistence farms of the Third World.

Throw in the business associated with maintaining the U.S. military in Iraq to the tune of $50 billion a year, and it becomes possible to make a case that partisan interest may be overwhelming the need for domestic security, another cost item in an ever-ballooning deficit.

This may not satisfy our liberal instincts, but until we are both satisfied the threat of terror is moderated sufficiently to take a collective deep breath, it is probably the way things are going to be for some time to come.

This week we are a nation of policemen (Kosovo, Korea, Liberia) and would be the liberators of Iraq and perhaps next Iran. That we are utterly detested by both ideological foes and nominal allies while pursuing a military policy that appears increasingly quixotic is daunting. But until a great voice arises among the Democratic presidential candidates and the party itself is able to represent an all-encompassing vision, Republican policy hegemony will remain unchallenged.

For better or for worse, we are a nation setting out upon a course of continuing conflict. The casualty reports on the nightly news suggest it is one thing to rush to Baghdad, another to hold it. Gird up your loins, America!

 
The Golden Group—
inspiring the imagination,
stirring the soul!

Copyright 2002, 2014 The Golden Group.
The Golden Group is a marketing, creative and Web services firm located in the Metrowest area of Greater Boston, Massachusetts.