Fear, Will and Foreign Policy
In describing the political tactics of the contemporary political Right, the Left is often content to boil it down to the "politics of fear," or something similar. The formula is time-tested: make your people feel sufficiently threatened by internal and external enemies, accuse your opposition of appeasement or treason, and accumulate the political capital of a frightened populace. Now I have no doubt that this formula is used by the right wing to score political points, if not the preferred weapon in the arsenal of American conservatives, but I think the formula has important limitations that need to be recognized. First, simply demonizing Democrats and liberals as being weak on security is becoming less effective. Its effectiveness is on life-support from timid Dems and a news establishment that has internalized the "Republicans = strong" "Democrats = weak" in terms of foreign policy. As I discussed last time, that dyad is being challenged by emboldened politicians and (in a more complicated fashion) journalism that is becoming more self-conscious. Second, the very idea that fear is a weapon exclusively for use by the Right and not the Left is flawed. The high-minded lefty might blush at using such low and divisive tactics, but I'm not talking about adopting the Right's playbook. I'm talking about reclaiming language, challenging frames--whatever we should call it now--the point is that we must reconceptualize what "fear" itself means.
First, the current understanding. Fear is the opposite of strength. Strength, in turn, requires will. The United States, still very much wrapped up in the ideal of the "superpower," has the means (strength) to accomplish almost anything it wants in the world. All that's needed is the will to do so: the will to go to Iraq and build a democracy, for example. Those who have doubts lack will and strength. Three years later Iraq is in or on the verge of civil war, and the reputation of the United States is in shambles. Our leaders have been revealed to be incompetent liars, possibly criminals, and continue to act without any accountability mechanism. Critics of the administration and its foreign policy abound. Yet Rumsfeld has the gall to accuse critics of suffering from "moral or intellectual confusion." Critics of the administration, Rumsfeld claims, are trying to "appease" a "new type of fascism." Forget the abused 'f-word' for a moment. Where's the appeasement? I assume the Defense Secretary is suggesting that leaving Iraq will mean victory for terrorists (or are they fascists?). Does that mean that inter-ethnic violence will stop as soon as US GIs leave Iraq? Shiite and Sunni alike will be "appeased" and stop using power tools on each other, kidnapping and executing, torturing and vandalizing? Please. Either Rumsfeld knows absolutely nothing about what's happening in Iraq (I didn't need to be convinced) or he is trying to score cheap political points by capitalizing on fear. And that is what truly disgusts me. This is not "just politics." This is the foreign policy failure of the 21st century. And the administration wants more of the same. That is outrageous. It's offensive. But how do Americans who are actually concerned about our moral standing in the world combat this nonsense? By changing how we think about fear.
Look more closely at Rumsfeld's words. Will is everything here. Military might means nothing. Rumsfeld is characterizing this as nothing less than the willpower of the American people versus the willpower of insurgents/terrorists/fascists. And what is this willpower being applied to? The resolve of each side to continue killing and being killed with no goal in sight. Actually, Iraqi insurgents have various goals whereas the Bush administration does not. Achieving democracy in Iraq, you say? Is that our goal? What is our strategy for accomplishing that goal? Without a strategy and a plan, goals are nothing more than dreams. And what about "resolve?" Are suicide bombers more committed to their cause than Americans who are caught in the blast? Suicide bombers have made a conscious decision to die for their cause. Yet this notion of sacrifice is absent from Bush administration rhetoric (when have you ever heard Bush conjure up the notion of "taking one for the team"?) and it certainly isn't shared by soldiers in Iraq. Didn't John Kerry say it best when he asked how you would ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake? US soldiers in Iraq are being killed--I can't emphasize this enough--for no reason. Please, give me a reason. The formation of government and constitution in Iraq has not induced democracy, the ostensible reason we're in Iraq. It seems to me that the reason Americans have lost the will to stay in Iraq is simply because there is no good reason to be there. And if we've lost the will, then doesn't that mean that America is no longer strong?
Rumsfeld's attacks make it sound like he's criticizing a minority opinion. But a majority of Americans favor a phased withdrawl from Iraq within a year and that same majority thinks it was a mistake to go there in the first place (with hindsight, for sure). Who are the radicals? The extremists? The minority opinion that is weakening America's resolve? Take a wild guess. It is the same people that got us into this mess, who refuse to admit error and refuse to make any serious effort to ameliorate the situation. Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney should not be taken seriously by anyone. They are the ones who are afraid. America doesn't want to "cut and run," America wants to end this pointless and costly conflict as soon as possible. And Democrats should be saying this every day until Election Day and beyond. The Bush administration is AFRAID to admit failure and would rather stick to failed policy and no plan (at great cost in blood and treasure) than get America back on track. It is COWARDLY and beneath contempt. You want to see American will in action? How about taking some action on getting us out of Iraq or the new Democratic Congressional Majority will fully investigate the entire executive branch for failing to uphold its Constitutionally-ordained duty and prosecute them for endangering the national security of the United States. It astounds me that these people are running the country into the ground because they think some Islamic fundamentalists are the second coming of Hitler. Not only are they cowards, but they are idiots as well.