GOOD MOVE, MR.BUSH:
Or How Going Into Iraq Was The Right Thing To Do

So President Bush is getting some flack from certain quarters — mostly bleeding hearts on the left — about all the lying, cheating, misleading, deceiving, dissimulating …. he and his administration have engaged in in order to lead the U.S. into war in Iraq. But what other choice did he have? Would the people of the country have agreed to this if the president had told them the real motives? Probably not, because like people everywhere, Americans are really more concerned with their day to day lives, and are not too interested in the grand designs of history. But let us consider the facts.

The U.S. had recently endured the greatest terrorist attack of all time. The perpetrators were based in Afghanistan under one of the most backward, repressive, fanatical governments in recent history who lent their full support to the terrorist’s cause. To the west of Afghanistan lay Iran, which would come in a close second to Afghanistan and is strongly suspected of developing nuclear weapons. To the west of that was Iraq, another repressive dictatorship whose leader had the bad judgment of making enemies with the U.S. This represents a good deal of real estate in a very strategic region of the globe — and before anyone brings up the hackneyed argument about oil, I have this to say: if the U.S. were only interested in Iraq’s oil, they would have done as the French were doing at the time, which was to do business with Saddam and buy it rather than warring with him. It would have been more profitable and much cheaper than what the war was going to cost even by the estimates of the time.

With the fall of the Soviet Empire, the U.S. also found itself the beneficiary of a rare historic moment, somewhat like the Greeks had after defeating the Persians, or the Romans had after defeating their rivals, Carthage. The U.S. was the only super-power left standing, militarily, technologically, economically and politically. They were left holding all the cards, much to the dismay of the pathetic Europeans, especially the French, with their dismal prospect of ever forming anything even approximating a real nation, or counterweight to U.S. might. Much of the world that counted was in the U.S.’s pocket, with the notable exception of these countries in the Middle East.

This rare historic moment pointed to the objective of all nations or empires that ever had this pretension: world domination. The U.S. is on the verge of becoming the first truly dominant world government, and Iraq was a moment to be seized. (Those who play chess can easily understand the stakes. When you can capture your opponent’s queen with no risk to your own position, you do it!) Taking on Iraq after having established itself in Afghanistan sets the U.S. up for the next play in Iran. Invading Iraq was simply good gamesmanship. It begged to be done. Surely, even those who oppose the war can see this, as this put the U.S. in a far better strategic position than it has ever been, and puts Iran in the very uncomfortable and vulnerable position of having the mightiest army in the world on both its eastern and western borders.

So, why all the whining from the liberal left? Why the criticisms from the Europeans, who are the liberal left? And who cares if they’re whining, anyway? There are really only a few simple principles to keep in mind: like all vacuums, nature abhors political ones, also. Whom would the whiny critics have preferred to fill that vacuum? Oh yes, they would answer, they would have preferred some utopist organization like the United Nations, which has never proven its efficacy in anything but corruption, to fill that role. But also, why the U.N.? The United Nations is impotent and ineffectual, and by that fact can govern nothing except by the good will of those governed. So, dreaming aside, how about real life examples as existed in the past century? Would they have preferred Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, perhaps, to dominate the world? Or how about the Soviet Union? (I know that last example might weaken my argument, because there really are some deranged souls out there who think this would have been a good thing.) Or perhaps something like those “feet of clay” they call the European Union? Or maybe these whiny types are not so worried about the global ambitions of Islamic fundamentalists to spread their ideology throughout the world? Please tell me, apart from being capitalist, imperialist and uncultured, what is so bad about the U.S. dominating the world? Isn’t the historically proven ideology it is promoting far more desirable than any of the alternatives we have seen in history, or even likely to see in the future?

The criticisms leveled against U.S. dominance always make the unfair comparison between an utopian ideal which has never existed and a real-world nation, as in the case of the rag-tag band of former communists, leftists, nationalists, anarchists and anti-globalists; or between a hypothetical God-ordained, theocratic system and a real-world secular one, as in the case of the Islamic fundamentalists. Americans, however, should be rightly proud of their idealism and all that their nation has accomplished. Is there any other nation with any other ideal in this world that can claim the same success that the U.S. can? Like France, for instance? (Yes, I’m hard on France, but that is only because it is particularly stupid, all the more so for thinking that it is not.)

There must only be one top dog in the world, one alpha-male, such is the jungle of the world we live in, but this is not at all as bad as it sounds. It will actually be a condition for political stability and peace. Historians point to the example of Rome, which endured 1000 years, and which had created the longest period of peace, prosperity and stability within the known world of Europe and the Mediterranean. One dominant power had eliminated the risk of conflict within its borders, and settled minor conflicts when they did occur. The U.S. can accomplish this same function and could, effectively, become the one-world government one-world dreamers have dreamed of. But unlike Rome, the triumphant empire is not a tribe or people, but a spiritual union of a vision and an ideal; that of free people living in a world embracing democratic values and aspirations of freedom, respect and tolerance for others, and civility to name a few, though also, as a consequence, inevitably bringing crass music, piercings, hamburgers and pornography to name a few of the worse, but which a sizeable number of people like anyway. This is a vision all people can share, and the U.S. now leads the way.

Really, isn’t this preferable to any of the other alternatives the world has ever known? So I say, “Good move, Mr. Bush.”