There are too many Internet terrorists scurrying around planting stink bombs in the very heart of the Green Zone where George Bush’s credibility lives. One of the most entertaining stink bombs that came my way compared the rain havoc in Bombay in July with the rain havoc in New Orleans in August: 18 inches fell in New Orleans, 37 in Bombay. Bombay has 24 times the population of New Orleans. In 48 hours, 37 died in Bombay and a hundred in New Orleans. In 12 hours the Indian Army and Navy were in Bombay; it took 48 hours in America. Now which, asked this mischievous sender, is the Third World country?
Four years ago, George Bush and Tony Blair were the undisputed masters of the response to arbitrary, provocative, barbaric terrorism. They strode the moral high ground. Today a hurricane laps around the feet of King George Canute and erodes the sand below his throne while he helplessly orders the waters of New Orleans to recede.
A question does not become a fact; America is not a Third World nation. But a question is always a part of an early warning system. The test of leadership is the distance between slip and tip-over. For once you’ve lost your balance, descent is so much faster than ascent. Victory is Rama; it has one face. Defeat is Ravana; it has ten faces. One of the latter is the cost of conflict. New Orleans is expected to cost $150 billion. That is not all that much for the world’s richest economy. But fifteen dollars can become difficult to find when a tycoon has crossed his credit limit many times. The most powerful businessmen, owners of the finest brands, know this — or learn it to their cost.
The cost of the conflicts that Bush has taken his country into is not measured only in hard cash; it is being measured in wet blood. Mahatma Gandhi used to say that all the hidden dirt of society flows into the hut during a flood. Hidden dirt of all kinds is flowing into American consciousness after New Orleans. The waters have to recede; the dirt will stay in the memory. New Orleans was not just a natural disaster. It was a mirror in which America saw the inherent inequality of the Bush world-view. The mind that protects the profits of oil companies at the expense of the Iraqi people is not so different from the mindset that persuades a powerful leader to head west toward a fund-raiser while thousands die in the east of his own country.
George Bush has an accountant’s view of the world. On one side is a list of assets: Friends, generally respectful and always obedient in a moment of need. On the other side is the column of liabilities: Enemies, always evil, violent, barbaric, backward and without the redeeming virtue of having had a renaissance. Reality, sadly, has more colors than black and white. A state of war is also a state of mind, and it is a poor leader who thinks that any conflict is a black-and-white confrontation.
On the fourth anniversary of 9/11 Bush and Blair must address one question: Why have they lost so much respect across so much of the world? This collapse of trust has taken place in their own countries as well. Why were they trusted to lead a war against terrorism once and are now regarded as the Punch and Judy of a particularly nasty tragedy? They don’t need to establish a commission to find the answer. They can take a hard look at the difference in the world’s reaction to the two wars that they launched, one in Afghanistan, and the other in Iraq.
I cannot think of a nation that did not support them, particularly after the Taleban in Kabul did not hand over Osama Bin Laden for trial. Pakistan, Afghanistan’s closest ally, sacrificed its strategic interests: India and Pakistan were on the same side. By the time Bush and Blair had forced the hands of the clock toward Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the most powerful nations of Europe, France and Germany, both their people and their governments, had publicly rejected the rationale for war against Iraq, at that time.
The last phrase is important, because if Hans Blix, the UN inspector, had been given time he might have proved that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Maybe that is why he was not given time. Four years later, even the legitimacy of the presence in Afghanistan has been eroded as it begins to look like an occupation. In Iraq, there is no doubt: It is an occupation.
George Bush should have listened to the man he sacked after re-election, his Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell supported the massing of troops on the borders of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but he was a reluctant warrior. He did not want to tip over into a war with all its unforeseen consequences (rarely have there been as many unforeseen consequences as in Iraq after Bush got onto an aircraft carrier in order to declare victory). Powell argued that intimidation had to be tried before the shooting started. But Bush and Blair were in heavy league with hubris. They thought that defeating Saddam was a stroll into Baghdad.
That might have been true. But they did not realize that defeating Saddam was not quite the same thing as defeating the Iraqi people, and that the people would mobilize once they saw the war for what it was, and what became explicit when the records of the Oil Ministry were more important to the occupation forces than the treasures of the national museum. Or Bush might have thought about his father’s view of war when he successfully drove Saddam out of Kuwait.
Nation-building, said Bush the Elder (and Wiser), was not something that American troops could do for Iraqis. To destroy a dictator as evil as Saddam might be important, but the world has to devise means that are morally acceptable.
A moral cause cannot be sustained by immoral means. A war for freedom tends to lose its legitimacy when it ends up in the profit sheets of a Halliburton. War is a course of last resort. It has a justification when it has a moral basis. When it becomes an occupation then those who oppose it acquire the moral strength.
Bush and Blair surrendered the moral edge in Iraq that they possessed against the Taleban. To dismiss the response of the desperate in Iraq as terrorism, as Bush and Blair do, will not get them anywhere. It will certainly not convince the young people who are ready to die in a battle against those they perceive to be conquerors rather than liberators.
Even those who welcomed Bush and Blair because they hated Saddam and his brutal dictatorship have joined the war against the perpetrators of “collateral damage”, the pretty phrase for excesses against civilians in Iraq. T.S. Eliot wrote, famously: This is the way the world ends/ Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way some presidents and prime ministers end, not with a halo but as a joke, destroyed by a stink bomb.
