http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm
Commentary No. 80, Jan. 1, 2002
"The 21st Century - The Next Six Months"
The next six months are a particularly dangerous time - for the United States, for the world. What is the state of the U.S. "war on terrorism" now that we have entered the 21st century? At one level, the U.S. government has achieved some of the objectives it set itself after Sept. 11. The U.S. has overthrown the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It has done this using almost exclusively air power, and with absolutely minimal cost of U.S. military lives. There is a new coalition government in power in Kabul, one that for the moment does the bidding of the U.S. The U.S. has achieved this without any serious objection from any other government - not those in Europe or the Far East, not Russia or China, and not most of the governments in the South.
Nor has there been any real objection to its policies from the U.S. public. Quite the contrary. Bush's policies, and most importantly the military success, have been hugely popular. Hence, the immediate political prospects of the Republican Party (Congressional elections are coming up in November 2002) have improved somewhat. To be sure, Bush has not managed to get bin Laden "dead or alive," and the likelihood of doing this seems to be diminishing daily. And if Bush fails in this, it will tarnish his image, no doubt.
The U.S. hawks, as we discussed in Commentary 79, see the present situation as the opportunity of a lifetime, and they are pushing hard to capitalize on it. They may currently be getting the support within the U.S. administration of those whose sole concern is winning the next election. A wartime Bush may seem to these political managers to be a greater vote-getter than a Bush struggling with an economic recession. So the possibility of a military strike in another zone (Iraq and Somalia are the most frequently mentioned) has become a real one, high on the agenda of Washington debate.
On the other hand, many things are not going so well for the U.S. A fourth India-Pakistan war seems to be breaking out. The Indians are saying that if the U.S. has the moral right to use warfare to combat terrorism, they have the same moral right. Washington is squeezed between the logic of the Indian case and the fact that, if there is a real war, Pakistani troops will move from the Afghanistan border to the Indian border. And then all real hope of stanching the flow of Al-Qaeda elements from Afghanistan into Pakistan will evaporate. Furthermore, under such conditions, if bin Laden really is in Pakistan, the Pakistani government is not going to risk civil strife by turning him over at a moment of Indo-Pakistani combat.
And what will bring the Indo-Pakistani war to an end? In the past, it was the Soviet Union that was the peacemaker. But if it isn't stopped rather quickly, what will happen inside Pakistan? Let us remember that one of bin Laden's objectives has been to bring down the Pakistani government. So the U.S. is wringing its hands, but does it have any real cards to play?
Then there is the little matter of Argentina. The country is in de facto bankruptcy, thanks to a combination of greed and the rigidity displayed by the U.S. Treasury and the IMF. Perhaps the economic impact of this collapse on the rest of Latin America and the world-economy can be contained. But will the example of a revolution led by the middle class be contagious? In any case, the Argentine fiasco will certainly strengthen the hand of those persons throughout the world who wish to defy the crazier edicts of the IMF.
Let us not forget Israel-Palestine. The situation has never been so gloomy, in terms of any hope that there could be a political arrangement in the short run that would calm down tempers. Israel has a government in power that clearly is not interested in any such arrangement, not even interested in the creation of a Palestinian state. And the hawks there have also seized the moment to force the U.S. and the Labor Party to abandon almost totally the idea of a real political deal with the Palestinian Authority, that is, with the Palestinian people.
So, the U.S. and the world have three quite explosive situations on their hands simultaneously, in none of which can U.S. military power play the least role. The U.S. is reduced to diplomacy, and frankly the Bush administration is not terribly good at diplomacy, because they lack the prime requirement, an ability to understand where the rest of the world is coming from.
In such a situation, what can the U.S. do? One of two things: either not very much, hoping for the best; or what the French would call a fuite en avant, striking strongly in some new direction in order to distract attention and energy from the multiple crises. And here the hawks have their proposal - bomb Baghdad. (I cannot take too seriously the idea of going into Somalia, since what would the U.S. do there, once it went in?) And if the U.S. bombs Baghdad seriously, can they pull off the surgical victory they have just achieved in Afghanistan? Most unlikely. Not only is Saddam's army a more serious one than that of the Taliban, but there is no equivalent of the Northern Alliance. Furthermore, the immediate neighbors will be most unenthusiastic about such a U.S. endeavor. Turkey stands to risk the emergence of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, with all its impact on Turkish internal politics. Saudi Arabia risks an internal upheaval if it allows its bases to be used. Yes, Iran will be happy to join the U.S. effort, which will make Saudi Arabia hysterical. Ah how the wheel turns!
As for the rest of the world, let us look at the latest Pew poll of world elites. Pew interviewed leaders in business, government, media, etc. in France, Germany, Spain, U.K.; Poland, Russia, Ukraine; Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela; Bangladesh, India, Japan, Korea, Philippines; Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Uzbekistan; Nigeria, South Africa. They found that while 50% of U.S. elites favor going into Iraq, only 29% of the others do, and this consistently across the world. They found that while 70% of U.S. elites describe the U.S. as acting multilaterally, only 33% of the others do. They found that while only 18& of U.S. elites said that U.S. policies caused the attacks of Sept. 11, 58% of the rest of the world think so (the lowest percentage being found among those in western Europe, where merely 36% think so). And finally, a whopping 70% (evenly spread across the world) think it is good for the U.S. to "feel vulnerable."
(See http://www.people-press.org/1219rpt.htm)
So the U.S. hawks do not exactly have a glowing endorsement from the elites of the rest of the world (not to speak of from more ordinary people). And they do not have unqualified endorsement at home in the U.S. A good portion of the U.S. military do not believe that overthrowing Saddam Hussein will be a piece of cake. Maybe the U.S. public is at the moment no longer as taken with the Vietnam syndrome as before Sept. 11, but I think the U.S. military is not over it. They don't want to fight a long, draining war which they know will lose them U.S. public support, a war without clear and precise political objectives, as they often say. And by and large, U.S. multinationals are very wary of the economic and political consequences of hawkish behavior.
Still, it's now or never. The next six months will be the moment of decision. And there are a large number of unpredictable elements. Will there be further significant terrorist attacks? Will there be further sudden economic collapses? Will the Afghan government hold together? So this is the moment of acute danger. If it passes, then we can begin to worry about the next five years.
Immanuel Wallerstein
[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax: 1-607-777-4315.
These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen
from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]
Email this Commentary to a colleague
______________________________________________
Go to List of Commentaries