| Heralded as the leading social critic of his generation, Lewis Lapham nevertheless has trouble explaining why, exactly, American president George W. Bush feels compelled to invade Iraq. The utility of a military strike, even one sanctioned by the United Nations, seems unclear at best.
"The only person who stands to gain from this war is Osama bin Laden," says the noted author and editor of Harper's magazine. "He's the one who cleanses the Middle East by force – and a merciful Allah is sending in the army. For him, it's all good."
For decades, Lapham has tracked the evolution of the American republic, with an eye to its foreign policy failures and periodic abuses of democracy. Born of the American gentry and privy to elite policy circles, he's no outsider. But he argues that the impetus for war lies squarely within the United States, not the Middle East. The targeting of Saddam Hussein, a despot only marginally linked to the terrorist cells that engineered the September 11 attacks, says more about the world's last superpower than anything else.
"The Pentagon has a vision not unlike that of Osama's," Lapham says before addressing a capacity crowd of Calgarians at the annual James Palmer lecture at the University of Calgary. "They all want to purify the Middle East – take the east, show it democracy and rid it of superstitious Islam. And Allah be praised, the same thing will happen in Libya, even Saudi Arabia.
"There is this notion of establishing a new empire," he continues. "Bush said his response is for the security of the American people. That's entirely wrong. If you set loose the fires of religious and political fundamentalism, this will only make the world more dangerous."
Lapham notes the lack of clear evidence to justify war against a dictator who's been in power as long as Fidel Castro – and who, in the past, has done business with prominent Americans, including members of the Bush team.
ABSENT ENEMY
"What is the war on terrorism?" he asks. "You can't declare war on an absent enemy. Bush has literally chosen Hussein because he can find him. It's like declaring war on lust – you never will win."
In fact, the long-term involvement of the United States in Saudi Arabia – generally understood as the main source of funding for political and terrorist fundamentalism across the Middle East – only muddies the picture. The battle lines, allegiances and associations of guilt are far from clear.
Even the common theory that the push for war is about controlling Iraqi oil supplies doesn't fully explain things – Canada sells more oil and gas to America than Iraq does, and OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) is unlikely to turn off its taps. To paint the Iraqi showdown as a resource war would be wrong. Instead, today's geopolitics are being shaped by far deeper forces and conflicts.
Lapham argues that the targeting of Iraq – in a world already filled with suspect and oppressive regimes, from North Korea to Sudan – is really part of an American identity crisis, a conflict of vision that churns deep within the continent. "If President Bush says we have to attack terrorism where it exists, you' d have to bomb quite a few countries," he says. "You'd have to bomb Florida."
In other words, foreign policy that paints war as the only alternative is an artifact of democratic malaise, the expression of a narrowed imperial mindset that likens protesters to "focus groups" )as Bush has done) and compels itself to aggressive unilateral action on trade and diplomacy, even with friendly nations like Canada.
"We could be at a historical turning point," says Lapham. "Will we remain a democratic republic or do we run an empire?"
THE NEW EMPIRE
This is an America that, despite the very real threat of terrorism, "is prey to delusions of grandeur, imagining itself living behind heavily defended enclaves." America the fortress and America the free republic are at war with each other. And, Lapham notes, the people advocating fortress America – replete with ID cards, diminished civil liberties and heavy-handed foreign policy – are also the former corporate players within the Bush regime, famously known for its ties to scandal-ridden companies like Enron.
He notes that America has become more oligarchic in recent decades, reflecting an enormous transfer of private wealth and power –an estimated 80 per cent of its wealth now resides in the hands of 10 per cent of its citizens.
"It comes down to less freedom for individuals and more rights for property," says Lapham of the new empire ethic. "That's the common thread in a lot of legislation, from energy policy to homeland security."
The sudden success of anti-war protests – including thousands of people demonstrating in Calgary last month – has left Lapham uncharacteristically optimistic about the future. "I think there might be a revival of the notion that politics matters," he says. "Since Ronald Reagan, there was this idea that important decisions were made elsewhere, outside of public life, followed by a gradual drop in voting turnout.
"I'm old enough to remember the 1950s, when public connoted good and private was considered suspect, greedy, untrustworthy – but then I saw it turn around, from public as bad schools, inefficient government and slums, to private as a transcendent force in society, the hope of Fortune 500."
Lapham argues that reviving public life is the key to long-term security and accountability. "It's much easier to be the citizen of a monarchy – a democracy imposes weight, responsibility, argument between people," he says. "The architecture is that of a suspension bridge, a tension that is dialectic. And the ascendant oligarchy of the last 20 years has worked to crush argument and contradiction, to end the democratic experiment."
By contrast, the international movement against war in Iraq is intrinsic to healthy democracy. "This [new protest movement] could have a real effect if it awakens the dormant public," says Lapham.
An important starting point is to reject bad ideas, especially the fuzzyheaded triumphalism of Bush's America that presumes that war can effectively settle conflict. "They think liberty is a trust fund that can be inherited, that somebody long ago won all the battles to be won and that now we can spend the capital."
Ultimately, he believes the point is to push for accountability and lasting solutions, not a quick and problematic fix by force. "Dropping bombs is about the past," says Lapham, who notes America's largely unsuccessful record of military resolution over the last 50 years. "Building ideas or schools is about the future. Mind always triumphs over matter, given enough time."
Gordon Laird is the author of POWER: Journeys Across an Energy Nation, just published in paperback. www.gordonlaird.com. |
Copyright ©2003 FFWD. All rights reserved.