Bush's Global Mission: His Flawed Logic for Escalating the Iraq War

[Elliot D. Cohen]

Elliot D. Cohen: Bush's Global Mission: His Flawed Logic for Escalating the Iraq War
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 01/09/2007 - 5:40am. Guest Contribution
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

Recently, in one of his special comments, Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown, remarked, "First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush. Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego." This echoes the logic commonly ascribed to Bush for his resolve to send more American troops into harm's way in Iraq. But this would be to underestimate Bush's deeper ideological commitment, a resolve that goes well beyond his own ego.

What has allowed the Bush administration to rationalize away and to demand the "sacrifice" of hundreds of thousands of lives, both Iraqi and American alike, is an ideology profoundly more treacherous than vanity alone. As a matter of historical record, it has been one ideology or another, from religious extremism to Nazism, that has enabled human beings to brutally kill or oppress without being deterred by a guilty conscience. In the case of the Bush administration, the ideology in question is one underwritten by the so-called "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC). It was this "Project" that sanctioned invading Iraq in the first place, and it is now the likely basis for Bush's refusal to leave.

PNAC is a Washington-based, neoconservative think tank founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in 1997 and financed by the oil and weapons industries. Its members include current and former Bush administration officials such as Vice President Dick Cheney; former Chief Advisor to the Vice President I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr.; former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; former Deputy Secretary of Defense and current President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz; current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton; former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle; and even the President's brother, Jeb. The main goal of PNAC is to bring about a "New American Century" in which the United States uses it military muscle to dominate and force corporate privatization throughout the world.

At the root of the PNAC ideology is the proliferation of American interests and values: "We need," it states, "to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values." In other words, anyone that stands in the way of American economic growth and expansion; any nation or group that refuses to adopt American values; to acquiesce in its corporate culture and to feed its bottom line, are to be counted among "regimes hostile to our interests and values." To the extent that terrorists and other extremists fall into this category, they make suitable military targets. Thus it was never really about stopping terrorism as such. And, indeed, any nation that happens to be "swimming in oil" like Iraq provides a prime target for engaging military action to stem the "hostility."

Moreover, PNAC prescribes the same sort of tenacity that Bush has himself demonstrated in remaining true to "the mission"; but what this mission really is, has less to do with the prosperity of Iraq than it has to do with the power and control the U.S. can attain over it through the exercise of military force. Carving out the "access of evil" its words would be prophetic if only they were not themselves the blueprint for U.S. policy under Bush. In its 2000 election year report, entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (PDF), it flatly states, "We hope that the Project's report will be useful as a road map for the nation's immediate and future defense plans." It declares,

We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself....Keeping the American peace requires the U.S. military to undertake a broad array of missions today and rise to very different challenges tomorrow, but there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the benevolent order it secures. This is the choice we face. It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace (my italics).

The same report chillingly declares that the "process of transformation" in which the U.S. emerges as the preeminent world power is likely to be a lengthy one unless there is "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." For PNAC the end justifies the means -- no matter how duplicitous and how many lives must be sacrificed.

The logic I am ascribing to Bush is not grounded in a questionable conspiracy theory. It is a simple syllogism the premises of which can readily be extracted from the pronouncements of PNAC:

1. Do not retreat from any military mission essential to establishing American world domination.

2. The mission in Iraq is such an essential mission.

Therefore, do not retreat from the mission in Iraq.

Sadly, the first premise is morally repugnant. It is the same old megalomaniac, dictatorial ideology that has led to world war and holocaust. And the second premise, which treats Iraq as a pawn in attaining global preeminence, is speculative and without empirical grounding.

Bush's positive argument for sending in more troops is similarly flawed:

1. Do whatever it takes to secure military victory essential for establishing American world domination.

2. Sending more troops into harms way in Iraq is necessary to secure such a military victory.

Therefore, we should send more troops into Iraq.

Regarding premise 2, most military experts have come to the opposite conclusion. Nevertheless, as a devoted trustee of the PNAC credo, Bush is disinclined to scrub "the mission" and his logic instead compels him to escalate it. This logic is clear and simple but it is clearly and simply wrong, and fraught with peril.

A leader of a superpower armed with such simplistic reasoning is dangerously bound to miss reality. Still, knowing the logical hand he is playing -- his blind, dictatorial, militaristic commitment to the PNAC ideology -- can provide a window into what else might be in store for us.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Elliot D. Cohen is the 2007 first prize recipient of the Project Censored award, editor of the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, and author of many books and articles on the media and other areas of applied ethics. His latest book is, The New Rational Therapy: Thinking Your Way to Serenity, Success, and Profound Happiness.

[Dhalgren]

1. Excellent piece. And dead on.

The lack of any real discussion of PNAC in our media can only be seen as collusion; I can think of no other satisfactory explanation. Welcome to DU! I look forward to your participation on this board...

[ewagner]

2. Thanks for the post....

You may, in fact, be correct in the assumption that this ideological perogative is Bush's driving motivation.

What is troubling me at the moment is that the public may be buying into Bush's false choices (e.g. we either send more troops or America is endangered by Al Queda in Iraq) Nobody seems to be testing that assumption or the false dicotomy that he's placing before us.

Wouldn't it be more rational to discuss "how do you keep Iraq from becoming a failed state AFTER you pull out?" (That implies use of that out-moded, paleolithic concept DIPLOMACY)


on edit; Almost forgot Welcome to DU! :hi: :toast:

[Paradise]

3. just wondering...

if the iraqis cannot be controlled by u.s. forces, what weight does this administration's argument carry... that, if we redeploy our troops, al qaeda forces will take over? :shrug:

[rodeodance]

4. "an ideology profoundly more treacherous than vanity alone"

YES YES

[PATRICK]

5. Centering on target

even more is how much wedded Bush and his dynasty pretensions to the success of this "worldview". The Rubicon-Potomac he jet-skiied across a long time ago has put all his being and fortunes into its success. Some may think there are prudent, even cowardly or bullying options "reasonable" and weak people will agree to if Bush gives up this course. I don't think the WH cowards and criminals playing their cards believe that, either from personal fear or the mere seduction of possessing all the present physical power the presidency can provide. In fact, all the treacherous moves to extricate Junior have been cast aside as blithely as Bush cast aside all pretenses of real service or bi-partisanship or real leadership or real effective propaganda. He would not change even if someone let him actually off the hook, nor would he harbor an ounce of real gratitude.

He has demonstrated near total inflexibility except for momentary necessities of political guile that worked easily. Even when successful in apparent drawbacks or compromises he reversed them all with actions and inaction to the contrary, flouting them all, eventually spitting on dupes and adversaries alike.

Today is no different as long as Cheney's crew remains to enable the ease of simple dictatorship. People will die at increasing rates and Iran has never been shelved as the next hit. Nor will it until this presidency is palpably and effectively brought to a grinding halt. What some see as dangerous insanity has always been there, 100% unchanging inflexibility and self-entitlement. Everyone else, including Bush I, dancing around this hoping for an uncharacteristic wisdom from this fraud only highlight this daily- a lesson never learned except in the graves of the victims.

[Time for change]

6. This is right on target - I couldn't agree more

[ArmchairMeme]

7. Next Question

Since corporate profits is the key. Has anyone looked into what profits have been made during the Cheney/Bush administration? I can see that Halliburton has certainly profited from this "war" and certainly any of the super wealthy neocons have seen their wealth grow as a direct result of the Bush tax cuts.

I don't think I will ever have the power to make myself more wealthy through administrative decisions the way the Cheney/Bush administration has accomplished.

Seems very morally wrong to choose war through which one personally profits!

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

8. Question

Did he mean to write "access of evil" and not "axis of evil"?

Or, am I missing something?

I'll get back on subject now.

Unfortunatley for the U.S., these PNAC madmen are hastening our demise in the terms of influence in the world and our collective prosperity. What is obvious to the rest of the world is that Bush (and by association PNAC) is a fascist.

Mussolini would be proud. Anyway, the congress has to start hearings on impeachment. Even if it would take a long time, this president has to be stopped with his warmongering. Impeachment is the only legal way to do it.
We don't need anarchy sweeping the nation.

[jwirr]

9. Isn't this called a conspiracy? Isn't that illegal?

[ZaiusNation]

10. How many roads must a man travel down...before he admits he is lost?