They came in as unreformed Cold Warriors, only
lacking a cold war – and looking for an enemy: a Russia to roll back even further,
rogue states like Saddam's rickety dictatorship to smash. They were still in
the old fight, eager to make sure that the "Evil Empire," already long down
for the count, would remain prostrate forever; eager to ensure that any new
evil empire like, say, China's would never be able to stand tall enough to be
a challenge. They saw opportunities to move into areas previously beyond the
reach of American imperial power like the former SSRs of the Soviet Union in
Central Asia, which just happened to be sitting on potentially fabulous undeveloped
energy fields; or farther into the even more fabulously energy-rich Middle East,
where Saddam's Iraq, planted atop the planet's third
largest reserves of petroleum, seemed so ready for a fall – with other states
in the region visibly not far behind.
It looked like it would be a coming-out party for one – the debutante ball
of the season. It would be, in fact, like the Cold War without the Soviet Union.
What a blast! And they could still put their energies into their fabulously
expensive, ever-misfiring anti-missile system, a subject they regularly focused
on from January 2000 until Sept. 10, 2001.
They were Cold Warriors in search of an enemy – just not the one they got.
When the Clintonistas, on their way out of the White House, warned
them about al-Qaeda, they paid next to no attention. Non-state actors were for
wusses. When the CIA carefully presented the president with a one-page, knock-your-socks-off
warning on Aug. 6, 2001, that had the
screaming headline, "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.," they ignored
it. Bush and his top officials were, as it happened, strangely adrift
until Sept. 11, 2001; then, they were panicked and terrified – until they realized
moment had come to hijack the plane of state; so they clambered aboard,
and like the Cold Warriors they were, went after Saddam.
Chalmers Johnson was himself once
a Cold Warrior. Unlike the top officials of the Bush administration, however,
he retained a remarkably flexible mind. He also had a striking ability to see
the world as it actually was – and a prescient vision of what was to come. He
wrote the near-prophetic and now-classic book, Blowback,
published well before the attacks of 9/11, and then followed it up with an anatomy
of the U.S. military's empire of bases, The
Sorrows of Empire, and finally, to end his Blowback Trilogy,
a vivid recipe for American catastrophe, Nemesis:
The Fall of the American Republic. All three are simply indispensable
volumes in any reasonable post-9/11 library. Here is his latest consideration
of that disastrous moment and its consequences as part of a series of book
reviews he is periodically writing for TomDispatch. Tom
A Guide for the Perplexed
Intellectual fallacies of the War on Terror
by Chalmers Johnson
[This essay is a review of The
Matador's Cape, America's Reckless Response to Terror by Stephen Holmes
(Cambridge University Press, 367 pp., $30).]
There are many books entitled "A Guide for the
Perplexed," including Moses Maimonides' 12th-century treatise on Jewish law
and E. F. Schumacher's 1977 book on how to think about science. Book titles
cannot be copyrighted. A Guide for the Perplexed might therefore be a
better title for Stephen Holmes' new book than the one he chose, The
Matador's Cape: America's Reckless Response to Terror. In his perhaps
overly clever conception, the matador is the terrorist leadership of al-Qaeda,
taunting a maddened United States into an ultimately fatal reaction. But do
not let the title stop you from reading the book. Holmes has written a powerful
and philosophically erudite survey of what we think we understand about the
9/11 attacks – and how and why the United States has magnified many times over
the initial damage caused by the terrorists.
Stephen Holmes is a law professor at New York University. In The Matador's
Cape, he sets out to forge an understanding – in an intellectual and historical
sense, not as a matter of journalism or of partisan politics – of the Iraq war,
which he calls "one of the worst (and least comprehensible) blunders in the
history of American foreign policy" (p. 230). His modus operandi is to survey
in depth approximately a dozen influential books on post-Cold War international
politics to see what light they shed on America's missteps. I will touch briefly
on the books he chooses for dissection, highlighting his essential thoughts
on each of them.
Holmes' choice of books is interesting. Many of the authors he focuses on are
American conservatives or neoconservatives, which is reasonable since they are
the ones who caused the debacle. He avoids progressive or left-wing writers,
and none of his choices are from Metropolitan Books' American
Empire Project. (Disclosure: This review was written before I read Holmes'
review of my own book Nemesis:
The Last Days of the American Republic in the Oct. 29 issue of The
He concludes: "Despite a slew of carefully researched and insightful books
on the subject, the reason why the United States responded to the al-Qaeda attack
by invading Iraq remains to some extent an enigma" (p. 3). Nonetheless, his
critiques of the books he has chosen are so well done and fair that they constitute
one of the best introductions to the subject. They also have the advantage in
several cases of making it unnecessary to read the original.
Holmes interrogates his subjects cleverly. His main questions and the key books
he dissects for each of them are:
Did Islamic religious extremism cause 9/11? Here he supplies his own independent
analysis and conclusion (to which I turn below).
Why did American military preeminence breed delusions of omnipotence, as
exemplified in Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in
the New World Order (Knopf, 2003)? While not persuaded by Kagan's portrayal
of the United States as "Mars" and Europe as "Venus," Holmes takes Kagan's book
as illustrative of neoconservative thought on the use of force in international
politics: "Far from guaranteeing an unbiased and clear-eyed view of the terrorist
threat, as Kagan contends, American military superiority has irredeemably skewed
the country's view of the enemy on the horizon, drawing the United States, with
appalling consequences, into a gratuitous, cruel, and unwinnable conflict in
the Middle East" (p. 72).
How was the war lost, as analyzed in Cobra II: The Inside Story of the
Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor (Pantheon,
2006)? Holmes regards this book by Gordon, the military correspondent of the
New York Times, and Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general,
as the best treatment of the military aspects of the disaster, down to and including
U.S. envoy L. Paul Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi military. I would argue
that Fiasco (Penguin 2006) by the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks
is more comprehensive, clearer-eyed, and more critical.
How did a tiny group of individuals, with eccentric theories and reflexes,
recklessly compound the country's post-9/11 security nightmare? Here Holmes
considers James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet
(Viking, 2004). One of Mann's more original insights is that the neocons in
the Bush administration were so bewitched by Cold War thinking that they were
simply incapable of grasping the new realities of the post-Cold War world. "In
Iraq, alas, the lack of a major military rival excited some aging hard-liners
into toppling a regime that they did not have the slightest clue how to replace….
We have only begun to witness the long-term consequences of their ghastly misuse
of unaccountable power" (p. 106).
What roles did Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld play in the Bush administration, as captured in Michael Mann's Incoherent
Empire (Verso, 2003)? According to Holmes, Mann's work "repays close study,
even by readers who will not find its perspective altogether congenial or convincing."
He argues that perhaps Mann's most important contribution, even if somewhat
mechanically put, is to stress the element of bureaucratic politics in Cheney's
and Rumsfeld's manipulation of the neophyte Bush: "The outcome of inter- and
intra-agency battles in Washington, D.C., allotted disproportionate influence
to the fatally blurred understanding of the terrorist threat shared by a few
highly placed and shrewd bureaucratic infighters. Rumsfeld and Cheney controlled
the military; and when they were given the opportunity to rank the country's
priorities in the war on terror, they assigned paramount importance to those
specific threats that could be countered effectively only by the government
agency over which they happened to preside" (p. 107).
Why did the U.S. decide to search for a new enemy after the Cold War, as
argued by an old Cold Warrior, Samuel Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations
and the Remaking of World Order (Simon and Schuster, 1996)? It is not clear
why Holmes included Huntington's 11-year-old treatise on "Allah made them do
it" in his collection of books on post-Cold War international politics except
as an act of obeisance to establishmentarian – and especially Council-on-Foreign-Relations
– thinking. Holmes regards Huntington's work as a "false template" and calls
it misleading. Well before 9/11, many critics of Huntington's concept of "civilization"
had pointed out that there is insufficient homogeneity in Christianity, Islam,
or the other great religions for any of them to replace the position vacated
by the Soviet Union. As Holmes remarks, Huntington "finds homogeneity because
he is looking for homogeneity" (p. 136).
What role did left-wing ideology play in legitimating the war on terror,
as seen by Samantha Power in "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of
Genocide (Basic, 2002). As Holmes acknowledges, "The humanitarian interventionists
rose to a superficial prominence in the 1990s largely because of a vacuum in
U.S. foreign-policy thinking after the end of the Cold War…. Their influence
was small, however, and after 9/11, that influence vanished altogether." He
nonetheless takes up the anti-genocide activists because he suspects that, by
making a rhetorically powerful case for casting aside existing decision-making
rules and protocols, they may have emboldened the Bush administration to follow
suit and fight the "evil" of terrorism outside the Constitution and the law.
The idea that Power was an influence on Cheney and Rumsfeld may seem a stretch
– they were, after all, doing what they had always wanted to do – but Holmes'
argument that "a savvy pro-war party may successfully employ humanitarian talk
both to gull the wider public and to silence potential critics on the liberal
side" (p. 157) is worth considering.
How did pro-war liberals help stifle national debate on the wisdom of the
Iraq war, as illustrated by Paul Berman in Power and the Idealists (Soft
Skull Press, 2005)? Wildly overstating his influence, Holmes writes, Berman,
a regular columnist for The New Republic, "first tried to convince us
that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, far from being a tribal war over scarce
land and water, is part of the wider spiritual war between liberalism and apocalyptic
irrationalism, not worth distinguishing too sharply from the conflict between
America and al-Qaeda. He then attempted to show that Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden represented two 'branches' of an essentially homogeneous extremism"
(p. 181). Berman, Holmes points out, conflated anti-terrorism with anti-fascism
in order to provide a foundation for the neologism "Islamofascism." His chief
reason for including Berman is that Holmes wants to address the views of religious
fundamentalists in their support of the war on terrorism.
How did democratization at the point of an assault rifle become America's
mission in the world, as seen by the apostate neoconservative Francis Fukuyama
in America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy
(Yale University Press, 2006)? Holmes is interested in Fukuyama, the neoconservatives'
perennial sophomore, because he offers an insider's insights into the chimerical
neocon "democratization" project for the Middle East.
Fukuyama argues that democracy is the most effective antidote to the kind of
Islamic radicalism that hit the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. He contends
that the root of Islamic rebellion is to be found in the savage and effective
repression of protesters – many of whom have been driven into exile – in places
like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Terrorism is not the enemy, merely a
tactic Islamic radicals have found exceptionally effective. Holmes writes of
Fukuyama's argument, "[T]o recognize that America's fundamental problem is Islamic
radicalism, and that terrorism is only a symptom, is to invite a political solution.
Promoting democracy is just such a political solution" (p. 209).
The problem, of course, is that not even the neocons are united on promoting
democracy; and, even if they were, they do not know how to go about it. Fukuyama
himself pleads for "a dramatic demilitarization of American foreign policy
and a re-emphasis on other types of policy instruments." The Pentagon, in
addition to its other deficiencies, is poorly positioned and incorrectly staffed
to foster democratic transitions.
Why is the contemporary American antiwar movement so anemic, as seen through
the lens of history by Geoffrey Stone in Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime
from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (W. W. Norton, 2004)?
Holmes has nothing but praise for Stone's history of expanded executive discretion
in wartime. A key question raised by Stone is why the American public has not
been more concerned with what happened in Iraq at Abu Ghraib prison and in the
wholesale destruction of the Sunni city of Fallujah. As Holmes sees it, the
Bush administration, at least in this one area, was adept at subverting public
protest. Among the more important lessons George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Karl Rove, and others learned from the Vietnam conflict, he writes, was that
if you want to suppress domestic questioning of foreign military adventures,
then eliminate the draft, create an all-volunteer force, reduce domestic taxes,
and maintain a false prosperity based on foreign borrowing.
How did the embracing of American unilateralism elevate the Office of the
Secretary of Defense over the Department of State, as put into perspective by
John Ikenberry in After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the
Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars (Princeton University Press, 2001)?
This book is Holmes' oddest choice – a dated history from an establishment point
of view of the international institutions created by the United States after
World War II, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and
NATO, all of which Ikenberry, a prominent academic specialist in international
relations, applauds. Holmes agrees that, during the Cold War, the United States
ruled largely through indirection, using seemingly impartial international institutions,
and eliciting the cooperation of other nations. He laments the failure to follow
this proven formula in the post-9/11 era, which led to the eclipse of the State
Department by the Defense Department, an institution hopelessly ill-suited for
diplomatic and nation-building missions.
Why do we battle lawlessness with lawlessness (for example, by torturing
prisoners) and concentrate extra-constitutional authority in the hands of the
president, as expounded by John Yoo in The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution
and Foreign Affairs After 9/11 (University of Chicago Press, 2005)? In this
final section, Holmes puts on his hat as the law professor he is and takes on
George Bush's and Alberto Gonzales' in-house legal counsel, the University of
California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo, who authored the "torture memos"
for them, denied the legality of the Geneva Conventions, and elaborated a grandiose
view of the president's war-making power. Holmes wonders, "Why would an aspiring
legal scholar labor for years to develop and defend a historical thesis that
is manifestly untrue? What is the point and what is the payoff? That is the
principal mystery of Yoo's singular book. Characteristic of The Powers of
War and Peace is the anemic relations between the evidence adduced and the
inferences drawn" (p. 291).
Holmes then points out that Yoo is a prominent member of the Federalist Society,
an association of conservative Republican lawyers who claim to be committed
to recovering the original understanding of the Constitution and which includes
several Republican appointees to the current Supreme Court. His conclusion
on Yoo and his fellow neocons is devastating: "[I]f the misbegotten Iraq war
proves anything, it is the foolhardiness of allowing an autistic clique that
reads its own newspapers and watches its own cable news channel to decide,
without outsider input, where to expend American blood and treasure – that
is, to decide which looming threats to stress and which to downplay or ignore"
Is Islam the Culprit or Merely a Distraction?
In addition to these broad themes, Holmes investigates hidden agendas and their
distorting effects on rational policy-making. Some of these are: Cheney's desire
to expand executive power and weaken congressional oversight; Rumsfeld's schemes
to field-test his theory that in modern warfare speed is more important than
mass; the plans by some of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's advisers to improve the security
situation of Israel; the administration's desire to create a new set of permanent
U.S. military bases in the Middle East to protect the U.S. oil supply in case
of a collapse of the Saudi monarchy; and the desire to invade Iraq and thereby
avoid putting all the blame for 9/11 on al-Qaeda – because to do so would have
involved admitting administration negligence and incompetence during the first
nine months of 2001 and, even worse, that Clinton was right in warning Bush
and his top officials that the main security threat to the United States was
a potential al-Qaeda attack or attacks.
This is not the place to attempt a comprehensive review of Holmes' detailed
critiques. For that, one should buy and read his book. Let me instead dwell
on three themes that I think illustrate his insight and originality.
Holmes rejects any direct connection between Islamic religious extremism and
the 9/11 attacks, although he recognizes that Islamic vilification of the United
States and other Western powers is often expressed in apocalyptically religious
language. "Emphasizing religious extremism as the motivation for the [9/11]
plot, whatever it reveals," he argues, "… terminates inquiry prematurely, encouraging
us to view the attack ahistorically as an expression of 'radical Salafism,'
a fundamentalist movement within Islam that allegedly drives its adherents to
homicidal violence against infidels" (p. 2). This approach, he points out, is
distinctly tautological: "Appeals to social norms or a culture of martyrdom
are not very helpful…. They are tantamount to saying that suicidal terrorism
is caused by a proclivity to suicidal terrorism" (p. 20).
Instead, he suggests, "The mobilizing ideology behind 9/11 was not Islam,
or even Islamic fundamentalism, but rather a specific narrative of blame"
(p. 63). He insists on putting the focus on the actual perpetrators, the 19
men who executed the attacks in New York and Washington – 15 Saudi Arabians,
two citizens of the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian, and one Lebanese.
None of them was particularly religious. Three were living together in Hamburg,
Germany, where they did appear to have become more interested in Islam than
they had been in their home countries. Mohamed Atta, the leader of the group,
age 33 on 9/11, had Egyptian and German degrees in architecture and city planning
and became highly politicized in favor of the Palestinian cause against Zionism
only after he went abroad.
Holmes notes, "According to the classic study of resentment, [Friedrich Nietzsche's
On the Genealogy of Morals (1887)] 'every sufferer instinctively seeks
a cause for his suffering; more specifically, an agent, a "guilty" agent who
is susceptible of pain – in short, some living being or other on whom he can
vent his feelings directly or in effigy, under some pretext or other.' If
suffering is seen as natural or uncaused it will be coded as misfortune instead
of injustice, and it will produce resignation rather than rebellion. The most
efficient way to incite, therefore, is to indict" (p. 64).
The role of bin Laden was, and remains, to provide such a hyperbolic indictment
– one that men like Atta would never have heard back in authoritarian Egypt
but that came through loud and clear in their German exile. Bin Laden demonized
the United States, accusing it of genocide against Muslims and repeatedly contending
that the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia ever since the first Gulf War
in 1991 was a far graver offense than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, even
though that had led to the death of 1 million Afghans and had sent 5 million
more into exile.
The fact that the 9/11 plot involved the attackers' own self-destruction
suggests possible irrationality on their part, but Holmes argues that this
was actually part of the specific narrative of blame. Americans feel contempt
for Muslims and ascribe little or no value to Muslim lives. Therefore, to
be captured after a terrorist attack involved a high likelihood that the Americans
would torture the perpetrator. Suicide took care of that worry (and provided
several other advantages discussed below).
The United States as "Sole Remaining Superpower"
Another subject about which Holmes is strikingly original is the subtle way
in which the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the United States' self-promotion
as the sole remaining superpower clouded our vision and virtually guaranteed
the catastrophe that ensued in Iraq. "Because Americans … have sunk so much
of their national treasure into a military establishment fit to deter and perhaps
fight an enemy that has now disappeared," he argues, "they have an almost irresistible
inclination to exaggerate the centrality of rogue states, excellent targets
for military destruction, [above] the overall terrorist threat. They overestimate
war (which never unfolds as expected) and underestimate diplomacy and persuasion
as instruments of American power" (pp. 71-72).
Holmes draws several interesting implications from this American overinvestment
in Cold-War-type military power. One is that the very nature of the 9/11 attacks
undermined crucial axioms of American national security doctrine. In a much
more significant way than in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, a non-state
actor on the international stage successfully attacked the United States,
contrary to a well-established belief in Pentagon circles that only states have
the capability of menacing us militarily. Equally alarming, by employing a strategy
requiring their own deaths, the terrorists ensured that deterrence no longer
held sway. Overwhelming military might cannot deter non-state actors who accept
that they will die in their attacks on others. The day after 9/11, American
leaders in Washington, D.C., suddenly felt unprotected and defenseless against
a new threat they only imperfectly understood. They responded in various ways.
One was to recast what had happened in terms of Cold War thinking. "To repress
feelings of defenselessness associated with an unfamiliar threat, the decision
makers' gaze slid uncontrollably away from al-Qaeda and fixated on a recognizable
threat that was unquestionably susceptible to being broken into bits" (p.312).
Holmes calls this fusion of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein a "mental alchemy,
the 'reconceiving' of an impalpable enemy as a palpable enemy." He endorses
James Mann's thesis that Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and others
did not change the underlying principles guiding American foreign policy in
response to the 9/11 attacks; that, in fact, they did the exact opposite: "[T]he
Bush administration has managed foreign affairs so ineptly because it has been
reflexively implementing out-of-date formulas in a radically changed security
environment" (p. 106).
Unintended consequences also played a role, Holmes argues: "If conservative
congressmen had not blocked [Pennsylvania Governor] Tom Ridge's nomination as
Defense Secretary [in 2000] for the ludicrously immaterial reason that he was
wobbly on abortion, then the Cheney-Rumsfeld group, including Wolfowitz and
[Douglas] Feith, would have been in no position to hijack the administration's
reaction to 9/11" (pp. 93-94). Rumsfeld enthusiastically endorsed Bush's description
of his "new" policies as a "war" because the Office of the Secretary of Defense
then became the lead agency in designing and carrying out America's response.
There was little or no countervailing influence. "By sheer chance," Holmes
writes, "Rice and Powell – no doubt orderly managers – have pedestrian minds
and perhaps deferential personalities. Neither provided a gripping and persuasive
vision of the United States' role in the world that might have counteracted
the megalomania of the neoconservatives, and neither was capable of outfoxing
the hard-liners in an interagency power struggle" (p. 94).
The costs of equating al-Qaeda with Iraq and of concentrating on a military
response were high. "It meant that some of the troops sent to Iraq in the
first wave believed, disgracefully, that they were avenging the 3,000 dead
from September 11…. Cruel and arbitrary behavior by some U.S. forces helped
stoke the violent insurgency that followed" (p. 307).
American confusion about the nature of the enemy – rogue state vs. non-state
terrorist organization – produced two different counterstrategies, both of
which almost certainly made the situation worse. First, by focusing on a rogue
state (Iraq), rather than on a non-state actor (al-Qaeda), the Pentagon drew
attention to what it came to call the "hand-off scenario" in which a nuclear-armed
rogue state might hand over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who
would use them against the U.S. To counter this threat, the Pentagon developed
a strategy of preventive war against rogue states with the objective of bringing
about regime change in them. The only way to prevent nuclear proliferation
to terrorist groups – so the argument went – was to forcibly democratize Middle
Eastern authoritarian regimes, some of which had long been allied with the
The other strategy was a return to what seemed like a form of deterrence:
a "scare the Muslims" campaign. This involved a resort to massive "shock and
awe" bombing raids on Baghdad with the intent of demonstrating the futility
of defying the United States.
By reacting to the threat of modern terrorism with an attack on a substitute
target – without even bothering to calculate the enormous potential costs
involved – the Pentagon greatly overestimated what military force could achieve.
Both the regime-change and overawe-the-Muslims approaches carried with them
potentially devastating unintended consequences – particularly if any of the
premises, such as about who possessed WMD, were wrong. Overly abstract ideas
were substituted for empirical knowledge of, and logical responses to, an
enemy's capabilities. Thus, insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, two devastated,
poor countries, have managed to fight one of the most powerful American expeditionary
forces in history to a virtual standstill. In short, "America's bellicose
response to the 9/11 provocation was not only dishonorable and unethical,
given the cruel suffering it has inflicted on thousands of innocents, but
also imprudent in the extreme because it was bound to produce as much hatred
as fear, as much burning desire for reprisal as quaking paralysis and docility.
Some of the sickening effects are unfolding before our eyes. That even more
malevolent consequences remain in store is a grim possibility not to be wished
away" (p. 10).
Complicity of the Left in American Imperialism
Holmes is also interesting on why the American Left has been so ineffectual
in countering the efforts of Washington's pro-war party. Deeply guilt-ridden
over the Clinton administration's failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda and
frustrated by the constraints of international law and United Nations procedures,
some influential progressives in America had already advocated a preemptive
and unilateralist turn in American foreign policy that the Bush administration
hijacked. Human rights activists had heavily promoted intervention in Bosnia
and Kosovo to halt ethnic cleansing – and doing so without any international
sanction whatsoever. Some of them became as enthusiastic about using the American
armed forces to achieve limited foreign policy goals as many neocons. Even
U.S. ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright made herself notorious with her
1993 wisecrack to then Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell: "What's the point
of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't
Although Holmes tries not to overstate his case, he suspects that the humanitarian
interventionism of the 1990s – at one point he speaks of "human rights as
imperial ideology" (p. 190) – may have played at least a small role in the
public's acceptance of Bush's intervention in Iraq. If so, it is hard to imagine
a better example of the disasters that good intentions can sometimes produce.
The result in Iraq, in turn, has more or less silenced calls from the Left
for further campaigns of military intervention for humanitarian purposes.
The U.S. is conspicuously not participating in the UN intervention in the
Darfur region of Sudan.
The Rule of Law
As a legal scholar, Holmes is committed to the rule of law. "[L]aw is best
understood," he writes, "not as a set of rigid rules but rather as a set of
institutional mechanisms and procedures designed to correct the mistakes that
even exceptionally talented executive officials are bound to make and to facilitate
midstream readjustments and course corrections. If we understand law, constitutionalism,
and due process in this way, then it becomes obvious why the war on terrorism
is bound to fail when conducted, as it has been so far, against the rule of
law and outside the constitutional system of checks and balances" (p. 5).
This short-circuiting of normal constitutional procedures he sees as probably
the most consequential post-9/11 blunder of the Bush administration. The president's
repeated claims that he needs high levels of secrecy and the ability to arbitrarily
cancel established law in order to move decisively against terrorists draw his
utter contempt. "By dismantling checks and balances, along the lines idealized
and celebrated by [John] Yoo, the administration has certainly gained flexibility
in the 'war on terror.' It has gained the flexibility, in particular, to shoot
first and aim afterward" (p. 301). Although such an assumption of dictatorial
powers has happened before during periods of national emergency in the United
States, Holmes is convinced that the humanitarian interventionism of the 1990s
helped anesthetize many Americans to the implications of what the government
was doing after 9/11.
Even now, with the Iraq War all but lost and public opinion having turned decisively
against the president, there is still a flabbiness in mainstream criticism that
reveals a major weakness in the conduct of American foreign policy. For example,
while many hawks and doves today recognize that Rumsfeld mobilized too few forces
to achieve his military objectives in Iraq, they tend to concentrate on his
rejection of former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki's advice that
he needed a larger army of occupation. They almost totally ignore the true national
policy implications of Rumsfeld's failed leadership. Holmes writes, "If Saddam
Hussein had actually possessed the tons of chemical and biological weapons that,
in the president's talking points, constituted the casus belli for the invasion,
Rumsfeld's slimmed-down force would have abetted the greatest proliferation
disaster in world history" (p. 82). He quotes Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor:
"Securing the WMD required sealing the country's borders and quickly seizing
control of the many suspected sites before they were raided by profiteers, terrorists,
and regime officials determined to carry on the fight. The force that Rumsfeld
eventually assembled, by contrast, was too small to do any of this" (pp. 84-85).
As a matter of fact, looters did ransack the Iraqi nuclear research center at
al Tuwaitha. No one pointed out these flaws in the strategy until well after
the invasion had revealed that, luckily, Saddam had no WMD.
With this book, Stephen Holmes largely succeeds in elevating criticism of
contemporary American imperialism in the Middle East to a new level. In my
opinion, however, he underplays the roles of American imperialism and militarism
in exploiting the 9/11 crisis to serve vested interests in the military-industrial
complex, the petroleum industry, and the military establishment. Holmes leaves
the false impression that the political system of the United States is capable
of a successful course correction. But, as Andrew Bacevich, author of The
New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, puts
it: "None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so
with the promise of reviving the system of checks and balances…. The aim of
the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize
it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."
There is, I believe, only one solution to the crisis we face. The American
people must make the decision to dismantle both the empire that has been created
in their name and the huge, still growing military establishment that undergirds
it. It is a task at least comparable to that undertaken by the British government
when, after World War II, it liquidated the British Empire. By doing so, Britain
avoided the fate of the Roman Republic – becoming a domestic tyranny and losing
its democracy, as would have been required if it had continued to try to dominate
much of the world by force. To take up these subjects, however, moves the
discussion into largely unexplored territory. For now, Holmes has done a wonderful
job of clearing the underbrush and preparing the way for the public to address
this more or less taboo subject.
Chalmers Johnson is the author of the best-selling Blowback Trilogy –
Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis:
The Last Days of the American Republic (2007).
Copyright 2007 Chalmers Johnson