December 28, 2007
Why We Fight
Before the Christmas break, we wrote that Americans' dwindling interest in the Iraq war might be perilous to the national interest, as Alasdair Roberts recently contended in Foreign Policy. Now the war on terrorism -- which even critics of President Bush must admit now includes Iraq -- is back in the headlines, thanks to yesterday's tragic events.
The view from Washington is that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a serious kneecap blow to U.S. foreign policy. To quickly review: President Pervez Musharraf, an ally by necessity, is increasingly unpopular at home and for good reason. (People who live under military dictatorships generally do not enjoy the experience.) Meanwhile, there's a virulent strain of anti-Western, Islamic fanaticism seeping through Pakistan at the moment, which means this White House's usually cherished principles of liberty and democracy do not apply.
The Bhutto-Musharraf power-sharing compromise was seen as the most feasible shot at calming Pakistan's restive populace. In Bhutto, Washington saw a more reliable and transparent ally in the war against extremism, in part because of her shady ethical past. She had something to prove.
Now that she's gone, we're back to where we were, and less than two weeks before Pakistan's elections no less. No doubt there is panic in the Beltway today, if only for the dearth of available options now.
In 2007, the Bush administration globe-trotted in a rush to put out fires more than it has in previous years. A question to ask is: Why? What has happened over the last seven years that the U.S. now always appears to be scrambling to avert foreign policy crises?
The talking heads will have ready-made answers, to be sure, but maybe now is the time to sit back, take a breath and really think this one through.
The challenges ahead for this nation are intimidating. The U.S.'s declining global popularity has been to the benefit of superpowers-in-waiting Russia and China. Despite the peer pressure it's under as the 2008 Beijing Olympics near, China continues to pour billions into building up its military. This, even as third-world poverty and all that entails (an inability to rein in disease, etc.) remains the status quo in large swaths of that country. Think North Korea. A country that prefers a beefy military to a fed and healthy public deserves to be treated warily.
Then there's Russia, which we've written about plenty this year.
Meanwhile, the No. 1 foreign policy priority for this administration and most likely the next remains the war against al-Qaida. Pakistan's interior ministry has announced that an al-Qaida leader was behind yesterday's attack on Bhutto. Meanwhile, the SITE Institute is reporting that Osama bin Laden has released a new message to his followers, just in time for the new year.
Some blame America's diminishing influence and popularity in the world on its foreign policy, and the result has been a growing isolationist movement in U.S. politics. It's tempting to view no-shot presidential candidate Ron Paul's fervent followers as an army of misfits, but they say something telling about where the mood of the nation is at the moment.
With the 2008 elections barreling toward us, voters have a serious choice to make. In Iraq, the U.S. is still in the woods. Ditto the war on al-Qaida. Voters seemed to lose interest in the war this year, whether from a sense of hopelessness or fatigue or a lack of headlines to remind them. In strictly moral terms, is that just? When 154,000 men and women are still there, fighting to conjure stability from chaos?
According to Iraq Slogger (subscription), there was not a single report on Iraq in the Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post or USA Today this morning, so in case you missed it, a car bomb killed 10 and wounded 66 people in Baghdad today. That's a near-daily occurrence in Iraq.
Violence is nothing new in Pakistan, either, as Bhutto was aware upon her return from exile in October. At least 20 other people were killed alongside Bhutto in yesterday's attack. They were most likely ordinary Pakistanis, cheering the chance to vote her into office next month.
The photo of the aftermath above was on the front page of the New York Times this morning, and you probably won't see too many others like it. If Americans have become inured to the war in Iraq and terrorist violence elsewhere, it may be because they are isolated from it. News organizations tend to be self-conscious when it comes to war and other violent imagery. Those who work in newsrooms see much more than the public ever will.
Because of the highly politicized nature of the Iraq war, withholding especially gruesome images has sometimes felt like a necessity. If you're wondering why, think back to 2004, when 123 out of 175 PBS affiliates chose not to broadcast an unbleeped version of "A Company of Soldiers," an excellent "Frontline" profile of a U.S. Army unit in Fallujah. When it comes to really graphic images, newsrooms are in a bind. Publish them, and risk being accused of implicitly criticizing the war. Don't publish them, and risk being accused of whitewashing the war.
None of that mitigates the fact that extremist elements have declared a war on the U.S. and its allies. People are dying in this war every day, and Benazir Bhutto happens to be a very famous example. Is it worth it? Is it even our fight? These are the questions to ask going into 2008 -- not fluff about kindergarten essays or horseracing or blimps.
One upside of Bhutto's murder, if there is one, may be if candidates, voters and the media return to the issues -- remember those? -- in next year's election. That ought to give serious-but-ignored candidates like John McCain and Joseph Biden some more air time. With Iowa less than a week away, though, it might be too late for these foreign policy-centric senators.
Yesterday, Wonkette (of all places) went ahead and published photos of the gory aftermath along with an explanation from Megan Carpentier of why she decided to do so: "But, also, a lot of regular people died today, too. Some of them were poor, some were old, and they died taking advantage of their (current) right of free assembly, which most of us probably take for granted. They died and were horrifically injured participating in the political process of their country, even knowing that in the end it might not make any difference because they might still end up under the thumb of a dictator."
Posted at 3:06 PM
Posted to:
Al-Qaida, Asia, Bush Administration, Campaigns, China, Democrats, Iraq, John McCain, Joseph Biden, Middle East, Pakistan, President Bush, Republicans, Ron Paul, Russia, Terrorism, WH 2008
Share via
