Behind Bush and Iraq

The conventional wisdom propagated by the media and pundits is that George Bush's goals in Iraq are essentially the same as those of Democrats and the American people. We all want to create a stable, hopefully representative, government in Iraq and then get out. Our differences, says the conventional wisdom, concern the means to the end rather than the end itself: Bush thinks an escalation of US military involvement can get us to the promised land while the rest of us prefer a deescalation and more diplomacy. Bush's critics assail him for his ignorance or blindness or obsession: see, for example, Nicholas Kristof's piece in the NY Times today where he compares Bush to Captain Ahab.

It ought to be clear by now, however, that the real problem is Bush's ultimate goals in the Middle East, not his strategy for getting there. The reason we're in Iraq is that the Bush Administration wanted a platform for projecting power in the Middle East, and Iraq - with its central location and weak, unpopular government - was the ideal place to put it. The plan was to go into Iraq and set up a client government that would allow us to station troops there in order to (a) protect and increase the flow of oil from the region, (b) keep China from extending its influence in the region, and (c) put enough military pressure on Iran and Syria to ultimately achieve regime change in those countries, so that in the end (d) stability (on our terms) including peace between Israel and the Palestinians (on Israel's terms) would reign in the Middle East.

The plan didn't work so well. Now the Bush Administration is caught on the horns of a dilemma. In order to get support for an invasion of Iraq from the American public and Congress, and to gain some measure of legitimacy after the fact from the international community, the US needed to allow Iraqis to participate in the writing of a constitution and to elect their own government. That government is not, however, the government that the Bush Administration wants. It is pro-Iranian, anti-democratic, theologically radical, and one might expect following a US withdrawal, anti-Israel and pro-Hezbollah. So for the Bush administration withdrawal would indeed mean defeat - it would leave Iraq in the hands of a government that is not willing to serve as a client for the US. Consequently the administration is committed to keeping troops in Iraq, not in support of the Maliki government but in order to prevent it from consolidating its control over Iraq. The way out for Bush is to use the US military presence to force a change in the government - either force Maliki to abandon his more radical supporters and form a coalition with more pliable elements, or ultimately to stage a coup (parliamentary if possible, military if necessary).

Recognizing Bush's real objectives in the region also helps us to understand his reluctance to negotiate with Iran. Bush's goal is domination of the region. The end result of any serious, comprehensive negotiations with Iran would be recognition of Iran's role as a regional power (in return for pledges from Iran to be more moderate in its exercise of that power). But Bush does not want to share power with Iran, he wants to defang Iran and ultimately create a client state there as well (as we had with the Shah until 1979). This gives us and Israel peace on our terms, keeps the Chinese out, and keeps the oil flowing.

The American people would not support the Bush administration's grand strategic design - not because we don't like Israel or oil, but because achieving it requires a militaristic foreign policy that will be (is already) too costly in terms of lives, money, and diversion from other priorities. So tonight in his State of the Union speech George Bush will repeat the lies he's been telling us for the last four years: the war in Iraq is about terrorism, the nuclear threat from Iran, democracy, peace, stability.

This is why I will be in Washington on Saturday marching against the war. Assemble on the National Mall between 3rd and 7th streets at 11 a.m., march begins at 1 p.m. Can I expect hundreds of young, idealistic Gettysburg College students to join me?