In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, President George W. Bush explained his war policy to the American people. "In this decisive year," he said, "you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom - or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life." (Here is President Bush's theme for the 2006 mid-term elections.) "The only way to protect our people," said Bush, "the only way to secure peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership - so the United States of America will continue to lead."
According to President Bush, America's prosperity and security depend on "an historic, long-term goal." This goal goes far beyond the elimination of Osama bin Laden or the democratization of Afghanistan and Iraq. "Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer," said Bush, "so we will act boldly in freedom's cause." Retreat from our duties to an "easier life" is not an option. "There is no peace in retreat," the president explained. "There is no honor in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will - by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage." And so, quite logically, President Bush's historic, long-term goal is nothing less than "the end of tyranny in our world."
Some would say that President Bush's policy is grand. Others would call it grandiose. But history will judge George W. Bush on whether his policy succeeds or fails. Although, his State of the Union implies that success and failure is not his alone. We have no choice but to take the offensive against our enemies, says Bush. Future presidents from both parties will be compelled by this logic. President Bush therefore smiles when Democrats fail to applaud his policy of crushing tyranny. By opposing America's historic mission, he believes the Democrats are doomed to lose more seats in Congress. America was attacked on 9/11, explained Bush. A vigorous counterattack against terror-supporting tyrants is our only alternative to ruin and defeat. Because the war is a long war, Bush believes his policy's success or failure depends on his successors and the American people. "I am confident in our plan for victory," said Bush to a nation enjoying the comforts of peace. "I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people...." Meanwhile, the American people - as a people - have not made many sacrifices. The financial cost of the war has been deferred.
President Bush is an optimist who berates the humbuggery of pessimism. The president therefore appeals to American courage, perseverance and optimism. With an eye to the stakes, President Bush reminds his American listeners that their prosperity and safety depend on the success of his policy. The implication is that retreat will not bring Americans an easier life, as the retreat from Southeast Asia did more than three decades ago. Americans must now fight to save their country. (One may liken Bush's words to those of Cato the Younger, who told the Roman Senate of his day: "I will address myself for a moment to those of you who have always been more concerned for your houses, villas, statues, and pictures, than you have for your country. In heaven's name, men, if you want to keep those cherished possessions, whatever they may be, if you want to have peace and quiet for the enjoyment of your pleasures, wake up while there is still time and lend a hand to defend the Republic.")
Bush knows how America works. He knows that by planting himself firmly on the side of courage and optimism while painting the opposition into a cowardly and pessimistic corner, he will pulverize the opposition party in November. What choice will the American people make? Will they vote for cowards who want to retreat, or heroes advancing to victory? If this is how the president frames the debate, without asking for any real sacrifice on the part of the American people, his party's victory is certain. Meanwhile, the Democratic side of the aisle cannot help but sit with folded arms as their Republican colleagues applaud. "Fellow citizens," said Bush, "we are in this fight to win, and we are winning."
How does the opposition articulate its criticism of the president's historic mission? How does the opposition explain that America's blood and treasure has been put into the service of impossible ends? How does one argue, when nuclear weapons are percolating into Iran (into the hands of religious lunatics) that "the end of tyranny in our world" is an unworkable strategy? Even if it is unworkable, what choice does America have? No argument can be made for sitting back and waiting for the terrorists to knock off whole American cities. There is no argument for sitting on one's hands.
President Bush's critics are bound to repeat what Secretary of State John Quincy Adams once said about America's role in the world. On 4 July 1821 Adams told the House of Representatives that America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." America, said Adams, "is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." According to Adams, America "well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own ... she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force."
Dismissing this "isolationist" creed as impractical and discredited, President Bush gave the following counterargument: "On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer - so we will act boldly in freedom's cause."
But how boldly can America act? Shall the president recommence the Vietnam War to free Southeast Asia? Shall he avenge the Tiananmen Square massacre in China? Shall he invade Burma, Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.? In ideal world, these regimes should be toppled. Their dictators should be tried for their crimes. But let us ask whether America is ready and willing to bear the cost of such a campaign? As noted before, the Bush administration refuses to increase the size of the U.S. military. It knows that such a step would cause a chain reaction leading to a rejection of the president's policy.
Despite his bold, unrealistic words the president is a realist. He pushes the American military relentlessly to the front while he coddles the American people. Go out and shop, he told the public after 9/11. Go buy airline tickets. America must continue to consume. It must continue to be entertained in comfort. Where deep sociological forces are at work, tread lightly oh presidents of America - democratic creatures that you are! And so, the United States remains wide open to massive terrorist assault. The borders are not secure as illegal narcotics and aliens continue to pour in. The country is distracted and the FBI has failed. Stronger domestic security measures cannot be adopted because stronger measures would hurt consumers. The country's shoppers would not tolerate a constriction of trade, the Republican Party will not tolerate protectionism, and the Democrats believe that any brake on immigration is racism.
"We are the hollow men," wrote T.S. Eliot, "We are the stuffed men....
"Leaning together
"Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
"Our dried voices, when
"We whisper together
"Are quiet and meaningless
"As wind in dry grass
"Or rats' feet over broken glass
"In our dry cellar."
According to President Bush, "liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. The same is true of Iran,a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people." President Bush then spoke directly to the Iranian people. "America respects you," he said, "and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom."
The Iranians will win their own freedom. Here is a revelation. President Bush doesn't intend to strike Iran. There are two reasons for this: (1) the president has used up his political capital on Iraq; (2) an attack will be counterproductive and strengthen the mullahs.
America's advance in the Middle East has been halted. The president says he will not retreat. But he cannot advance.
