America Under Threat
Boris Kagarlitsky
3 April 2003
Since the very first day of the war on Iraq anti-war protesters are filling streets around the world. In fact, the peace-fighters' plan for preventing the World War I came into being in the light of the looming World War III. In Russia, however, there are no mass protests. Nationalist and anti-Semitic demonstrations near the US embassy have nothing to do with the anti-war protests in Europe. If people with the same slogans try to join European peace marches, they would not be just thrown out of the crowd but possibly unmercifully beaten.
Russian people are not just silent. They seem to have a hazy idea of what is at stake with Basra and Baghdad. Of course, everyone speaks about the Iraqi oil and the Washington's urge towards the world leadership. But the US had a need in oil before, and as for the American super-power domination in the world, this war casts doubt on it, wrecking the system of the institutions which served the US interests during 1990-s: UN, NATO, Euro-Atlantic partnership. And even the current European Union split hardly serves Washington interests. Above all problems with the US and Europe, it was the EU to ensure American political success in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Why does the US administration take risks now? First of all - problems at home. The country suffers the hardest economic crisis in decades. And the power in Washington is in the hands of the most rightist administration since the beginning of the ?? century. Some observers even doubt that Bush team can be called conservatives and think that the right-wing radicals seized the power in the US. These people have their own agenda, which is as dangerous for the America as for the Middle East.
Why the protests in New York, which survived the 9-11, are so huge? Why are victims of that terror taking part in the demonstrations? How did it happen that men of culture, politically indifferent as a rule, massively came out against the war? And finally, why in San Francisco clashes with the police have become so very furious since the very first war hours? Nothing like that happened during the war in Vietnam! Surely, hundreds of thousands Americans want peace and feel for the ordinary Iraqis. But what is even more important is the fact that many US citizens see what kind of imminent threat their own future is under.
Traditionally, the American society is divided into two parts. There are cosmopolite, liberal cities like New York, San Francisco and partly Los-Angeles (which however can be called a "city" with some reserve). Then there is conservative, benighted provincial America, which still criticizes Copernicus and doesn't want to consider Darwinism. Of course, real life is much more diverse and complicated, and not everyone in the big city is "politically correct" and progressive. As an example, on the one hand reactionary and racist Brighton Beach in Brooklyn, and on the other, agricultural state Vermont, which voted in favor of independent socialist Bernie Senders instead of democrats and republicans over and over again. But in general the US politics still can be characterized as a compromise between "foremost" liberal cities and the conservative "suburbs". Throughout 1960-s and 1970-s advance of liberal civil society in the big cities has led to the serious democratization of the United States. When Reagan came into power, the conservatives passed to the offensive. However demarcation is the case not only with the parties. Democrats, with the support of the big cities' people, also contributed their mite. But what was happening before is far from what we are witnessing since George Jr. has come to power. First he took over the White House as a result of the dubious elections: two provincial districts in Florida went over the results of all-national voting. Then, after the suspicious act of terror on 9-11, we see systematic limitations of civil rights and liberties and the establishment of the new homeland security office. Today this organization keeps a low profile but under favorable circumstances it may become something like the US KGB.
The New York magazine The Nation editor-in-chief, Katrina vanden Heuvel says that it is "a gradual coup d'etat". First they began with the elections in Florida, then introduced series of "anti-terror" measures, then attacked Iraq without UN sanction. They also violated 100-year American tradition to use weapons only after request, or as a result of attack when American citizens were hurt. Bush and his administration deny that they have given up the traditional rules (even if it's just a formality). But the new times are coming, they say, the US role in the world has changed, and now there are new rules. It is exactly what frightens millions of Americans at the same time. Different people write that America repeats the Rome way, from the Republic to the Empire. With all the consequences for the democracy that follows it.
It's not a surprise, that Americans from the big cities and of democratic traditions filled the streets, prancing; that Hollywood, almost recently having mechanically produced patriotic action movies, rebelled; that "Silicon valley" rose against. California seems to be Russia of 1905. They clearly understand that not only Iraq's future is in question but so is their own.
Every comparison is relative. And nevertheless, it's impossible not to notice that 9-11 and the present attack on Baghdad plays the same role in the modern American history as the blown-up houses and the Chechen War II in Russian history. But there is one fundamental difference. Putin didn't want the victory as such. It was enough for him to raise nationalist feelings and thus get into Kremlin. Russian civil society anyway was in comatose, and there were no troubles with it. US are quite different matter. The resistance proved to be rather serious and it continues to grow. That's why Bush needs a victory and only a victory. Thus the devastation of Iraq can become the beginning of an end to the American civil society.
Ordinary people wait for the victorious war. Afghanistan wasn't enough. National pride demands human sacrifices. If the promised massacre never happens, American patriot would feel deeply disillusioned. Nationalist is fully satisfied only when he sees blood.
But what if the war isn't "short and victorious"? American warfare of the last 20 years met the demand. Since the invasion to the Grenade and Panama a general scenario was born. Battle action as such takes several days. Other time is for aviation, artillery and propaganda. The enemy should be dozens and even hundred times weaker and should not fight to the death. Because even decided superiority in manpower and military equipment is not enough when facing the enemy who is ready to fight for every street and every house.
Large or not, war actions used to end with compromise - with the same Saddam Hussein in 1991, with the Serbs in 1990-s, with the leaders of the Afghan fighters in 2002. This time the case seems more complicated. Washington can't deal with the Baghdad regime. During last ten years the USA managed to make the Iraqi society hate them. After the first war Baghdad citizens were ready to welcome Americans with flowers, but they didn't come, preferring deal with Saddam to Iraq liberation. Then the blockade came, awful in its senselessness, which didn't weaken but even strengthened the ruling regime in Baghdad. It's not a surprise that Washington can hardly find any ally in Baghdad.
Bush plays the Iraqi roulette. If his stakes were right, the war would last less than a month and end in the effective occupation of the country. Dissatisfied European leaders would be discredited, pacifists, leftists and liberals in the US isolated. A wave of patriotic enthusiasm would rise, which guarantees the Republican triumph at the next elections despite the economical difficulties. But what if Washington has miscalculated? The first days of war has shown that it doesn't follow Bush scenario.
To take Baghdad in a military assault one need at least one million troops, which Washington simply doesn't have for this war. Last time a city as big was stormed in 1945. It was Berlin, and marshal Zhukov lost there about one million soldiers dead. With all the noises made about high-tech weapons, street fighting today is not very different from the years of World War Two. Molotov cocktail is the high-tech of street fighting.
American war machine proved to be a very effective tool of political pressure capable of terrorizing indocile leaders around the world. But is it fit for real fighting? Can it withstand a long war with heavy casualties? Can American public tolerate fifty or sixty thousand troops dead - a super-optimistic scenario in case of a real battle? There are enough reasons to doubt that.
Antiwar protests would continue inside and outside the USA, leaders of France and Germany would feel more self-assured. At last even "one-storeyed America" would understand the meaning and the scale of antiwar feelings in the world. Bush would face the heavy critics not only from the left but also from the right. Not pacifists and leftists, but the administration would be isolated. The war wouldn't make up for the economic difficulties, but only would make it worse.
Bush can win. But if he plays too long, the political catastrophe is unavoidable. And then changes in the USA and in the whole world would follow the scenario which if antithetic to the Washington Julius Caesar followers.
|
