The Missing Link
by modern living editor Jason Capodimonte
Over the past two weeks we have been treated to two closely reasoned articles whose distinguished authors presented challenging analyses of the current international disputation over Iraq. As these authors would agree, though, the truth arises from disagreement, and I will now do my duty to Truth by disagreeing with them.
Peterson F. Whalley attributed the actions of nations to self-interest. As Wentworth Sutton pointed out the following week, though, many of the actions of nations are difficult to explain as the result of self-interest. And as he implied, one's own self-interest is difficult enough to determine reliably, let alone someone else's, so understanding international relations as an expression of self-interest is also difficult to do reliably.
Wentworth accepted that self-interest played a role in the actions of nations, but asserted that ideology also played a role. National ideologies, he argued, affect national actions.
Unfortunately, national ideologies cannot even be reliably defined, so we cannot hope to draw reliable conclusions about the ideologies which are supposedly motivating nations' actions. That is, we cannot reliably understand international relations as an expression of ideology, either.
This week I would like to start to work toward an understanding of the crisis over Iraq by first acquiring an understanding of what Peterson and Wentworth are up to. Obviously, Peterson and Wentworth are seekers after truth. However, they seem to believe that Truth is to be found in only one or two places. Peterson believes the truth is to be found in the causes of events, Wentworth that it is to be found in their consequences. Certainly, finding the truth involves assessing both of these. But what about what goes on between the causes and the consequences?
For example, let's suppose that the cause of the crisis is that George W. Bush wanted to do a favour to the oil industry, and the consequence is that he threatened Iraq, thus destroying American credibility, weakening America's status as a world leader, and probably hurting American strategic interests. How did he get from the comprehensible cause to the questinoable consequence?
If President Bush wanted to help the oil industry, he had plenty of other options open to him. In fact, there is no group in the United States whose interests are best served by an attack on Iraq – not even the manufacturers of armaments benefit, since the current military procurement system rewards them handsomely and the extra demands made by war might actually reduce the mark-up they can charge a cash-strapped government, increase their overtime costs, and increase the cost of their supplies. So what made him do it?
Peterson and Wentworth have ignored the obvious. President Bush has pursued this policy for a simple reason. The reason is that he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. He is not the smartest suit on the rack. He is a man whose most intelligent decision was to be born after his father.
Many acknowledge this, but then assert that he is merely the cat's paw of his advisors, more intelligent men and women who are using him to further their own ends. But how intelligent can you be if you trust the achievement of your wishes and dreams to someone who has trouble solving the Jumble®? Intelligent enough to tell the American people that their best defence against terrorist attack is to lay in a supply of duct tape and plastic sheets.
Well, someone had to be smart enough to get him into the presidency, didn't they? The answer to that question is no. Elections in the United States are not won with intelligence, they are not won with well thought-out policies which will benefit the country, they are not won by talent and worth. What, you may ask, are they won by then?
You may not like the answer, but it is correct – they are won by money. Running for the presidency of the United States requires an enormous amount of money. A campaign must be conducted in all fifty states. Candidates have to buy television time, print and radio ads, travel, the occasional state electoral commission, and much, much more. As we all know, possession of a lot of money does not make you intelligent – Mr. Bush is quite wealthy himself. Being the candidate of money does not make you intelligent, either. Herbert Hoover meant well, but his policies were disastrous. And then there was Warren G. Harding.
American elections seem to be evolving into competitions of the patrician. Mr. Bush's opponent in the presidential election was the scion of a wealthy and influential Tennessee family, and the leading candidate to oppose Mr. Bush in 2004 is a Boston brahmin. It is only people of this class who can raise the enormous amounts of money required to compete for the presidency.
A similar problem exists in the United States senate. A statewide campaign is not as financially demanding as a nationwide one, but it still requires considerable amounts of money. So what has been happening in the United States is that money floats to the top, taking with it whatever feckless trust fund recipient appears photogenic enough for the job. Occasionally a person of humble origin slips through, but he or she has always risen far above his or her humble origins and is supported financially mainly by people who have risen far above theirs (including labour leaders) or who had none to begin with (including labour leaders – Jackie Presser comes to mind).
And what kind of policy can you expect out of people like that? Chiefly the kind of policy which distracts the populace from whatever the last catastrophic mistake you made was. If Mr. Bush didn't have war fever working for him the press would have to talk about his deficit budgets and his involvement in questionable business deals, and his dissembling about his involvement in shady business deals, among other things. Or perhaps Mr. Bush got tired of people making fun of his malapropisms. What better way to deal with the problem than to get the nation obsessed with war instead?
And the American administration has made sure the nation is obsessed with war. This so-called crisis has been a crisis now since Moses was in the fire brigade. Each week seems to bring a new official last chance for Iraq. Supposedly the American administration is waiting for spring to attack, but a more likely possibility is that it's simply prolonging the crisis until all the Enron documents have been shredded.
As I have said, a reasonable analysis of American policy towards Iraq is that it serves no identifiable interest and is compatible with no national ideology. The reasonable analysis is that money talks. It talks loud. And much of the time it talks nonsense.
Posted February 27, 2003
The Missing Link © John FitzGerald, 2003
Click the banner or click here for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Commentary | Smoking gun essays | Home