Expecting the Worst, Hoping for the Best
Today Salon has posted a series of dire predictions about “worst case scenarios” that may come about should President Bush run out of luck and have to get by on his wits alone. All of these, from the economic disruptions potentially caused by the Republicans’ bone-headed tax plan to the violence emerging from a botched (or even largely successful) action in Iraq, involve considerable suffering on the part of many people not responsible for their circumstances. I don’t support the decisions that have made these outcomes likely, I don’t trust the judgment of people who tell us this is the right path, and I would love the satisfaction of knowing I was right, but if there’s nothing I can do to change the outcome, I just can’t bring myself to hope for Bush’s failure. Unfortunate – maybe even criminal – circumstances have left this fool as the captain of all of our fates, but I for one would rather make it through the storm than have innocents martyred just to prove a point.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that it is impossible to predict every outcome, even given pretty good information. Human events don’t always run according to cause-and-effect, and even if they do, there are often unexpected or unforeseen factors – especially if ideology blinds us to some fairly basic points. The Right has been wrong about a lot – Clinton’s 1993 budget comes to mind – but so has the Left. In the 80s, when many of us saw Reagan as an irresponsible warmonger pushing us to the brink of nuclear confrontation, it may just have been the case that his unlikely strategy of escalation really did win the Cold War. Certainly the results speak for themselves: even if you don’t agree that the “good guys” won, a bunch of very bad guys definitely lost. Bush senior accomplished his objectives in Iraq and bought 10 years of relative calm and stable oil prices. Even his methods of building the coalition – widely criticized at the time – look pretty good today. Sure it didn’t last, but no solution is ever permanent. Every action eventually gives birth to a series of contradictions and new challenges that need to be addressed down the line.
When we look at the current Iraq situation in particular, there are a few outcomes that would be good for everyone, even if we have trouble accepting them as the basis of a legitimate foreign policy.
For one thing, there’s nothing to apologize for if the war is at least partly about oil. Yes, we burn far too much of it, and the resource belongs to someone else, but the impact of a supply shock on the US economy in the not-so-unlikely event of a political shakeup in Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic – not just for the fat-cats, but for everyone. If a war with Iraq fought on some other pretext happens to provide some security for the oil supply, this is not a bad thing. Down the line, we must reduce dependence on non-renewable resources, but we’re not there yet. Our troubled economy needs access to cheap energy, or, at the very least, guarantees that energy prices won’t spike, until other (better) solutions can be found and implemented. Most of the world will attribute this as the primary motive for US action anyway and our reputation will suffer accordingly, so we might as well get the benefits of it.
Second, the problem of Arab and Muslim rage is not as simple as critics are making it sound. US setbacks in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East will empower and encourage terrorists. In that event, the death-toll among innocents in the West could exceed the number of Iraqi civilian deaths brought about by a military action. A massive US victory over Saddam, on the other hand, is, based on ample historical evidence, likely to intimidate them into a very loud, blustery inaction. There will be much high-decibel talk about revenge and bloodshed, but even fanatics understand the language of violence (it might be said that they understand little else). The best case would be a scenario where no innocent lives were at risk, but that option is not on the board. Gunboat diplomacy is ugly and shameful for a civilized democracy, but it is not ineffective. Again, if we’re going to use force anyway, we might entertain the possibility that force can work.
Finally there is the widely-derided goal of establishing a humane, maybe even democratic regime in Iraq. There are plenty of good historical, cultural and geopolitical reasons why this is unlikely to succeed. But what if it does? Consider the Philippines – a fragile, multi-ethnic society with a long history of colonial oppression and religious fanaticism, whose well-educated (if poor) population eventually overthrew a tyrant and installed something resembling democracy. Or Japan, a proud nation which did the same at bayonet-point following defeat at the hands of the US. Establishing some kind of transparent, accountable government in any Arab country is a tall order, but if we’re going there anyway, we might as well try, since success would be in the interests of everyone across the political spectrum. In fact, it should be the imperative of a responsible progressive movement to hold the Administration’s feet to the fire on this subject, although the more predictable response is righteous finger-wagging and demands for isolationism.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t approve of or support the war. In no case do I think the Administration is taking the prudent, just or sensible course by insisting upon war with Iraq, but it is clear that the logic of cause-and-effect has little hold on the imagination of this President. Facts are facts: the compelling case against war has been forcefully made and rejected. International opinion has been expressed and ignored. Even the conservative estimates made by intelligence sources within the government are dismissed as nay-saying. Bush, for whatever reason, seems content to face the consequences of failure even if he doesn’t understand all the risks, and it seems there is little anyone can do to stop him. If disaster is in the cards, we’re all going to suffer – there’s not much point in further complaining. The only thing left to hope for is that the upside of a high-risk strategy is greater rewards – not, in all cases, the rewards we should seek, but ones we should take if they’re available.
10:38:56 AM 
|
|
