The Iraqi campaign, which was conducted without the consent of the above-mentioned council, was not the first of its kind. For everyone has forgotten that India once proceeded to sever Bangladesh from Pakistan without bothering to consult the UN; that the Soviet army intervened in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan without the support of the UN; that the Korean and Vietnam wars were waged despite the Chinese and Soviet vetoes; that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan first attacked Israel in 1967, with a further Egyptian aggression taking place in 1973, in a show of utter disregard for the UN; and so on. Ever since its creation, the UN has always failed miserably in all its endeavours, which is especially true of all its attempts to interpose itself and pacify others using its ridiculous ‘blue helmets’. In its newfound cynicism (which is definitely new, since the Americans, who should be seen as the genuine founders of both the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations, did not think this way at a time when the UN still served their interests), the USA is absolutely right when attempting to limit the role of the United Nations to a strictly humanitarian one and striving to govern global affairs. The main issue, however, is finding out whether it actually has the means to achieve this.
When Gary Schmitt, the director of the ‘Project for the New American Century’, points out that ‘the USA has every right to act as the principal referee in matters of [global] security, because it is the only civilised power that has both the ability and the will to do so’, he reverts to a sound political philosophy, one that is founded upon the right of the strongest, or rather upon the idea that might is right and not the other way around. Such an attitude was embraced by Sparta, the Roman Empire, the kings of France, Napoleon, Bismarck, the British Empire and many others.
Ever since the fall of the USSR, the USA has ceased to believe in the ridiculous and naïve fictions relating to some ‘international community’ and the existence of permanent alliances (which only serve to restrain foreign policies). Instead, the Americans intend to form and lead coalitions whose exact composition is shaped by current events. Robert Kagan, himself a neoconservative theoretician, mocks the new Europe that desires to exist in a ‘post-modern paradise’ governed by the ‘principle of moral conscience’, a principle that is as unrealistic as it is devoid of any will to power. Explaining things in a leisurely fashion, Kagan gave Le Nouvel Observateur the following statement: ‘Military power and the logic of force will be the decisive factors in the world we are now entering. America’s long hegemonic era has barely just begun’. The first sentence mirrors a remarkable lucidity. The second, by contrast, is mere wishful thinking and a sign of a very naïve state of mind. From a Machiavellian perspective, the mistake made by the American leaders is that they are playing their cards with such blatant naivety. The Americans have always been bad liars: they resort to lies at the worst possible time and whenever the world is well aware of their deceitfulness (as witnessed through their use of the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ pretext against Iraq), yet tell the truth at a time when they should actually be lying or, at the very least, not saying anything. By displaying the true nature of their imperialism for the whole world to see, they weaken their imperialistic position by increasing the world’s resistance to it.
***
In addition to American oil endeavours, there might also be an additional (meaning real) explanation behind America’s military adventurism in Iraq, an adventurism that has had disastrous consequences for the USA itself.
In Alain-Gérard Slama’s view, ‘the only explanation for such an amassment of mistakes is that the USA itself is undergoing a crisis’ and that its universalistic model is no longer effective: ‘As vigorously highlighted by Emmanuel Todd [in After the Empire, Gallimard editions, 2002], it is the decline experienced by the universalism of old that has channelled the American people’s traditional flaws into a state of distorted identity’ (Le Figaro, 31/03/2003). In other words, it is apparently through its military crusade that the American administration is trying to re-solder a society whose values and legitimacy are now collapsing.
Indeed, the signs that point to such an ‘American crisis’ are accumulating: an invasion at the hands of the Latinos; the utter failure of the melting-pot; the domestic decline of the Anglo-Saxon model and even that of the English language itself; the establishment of a segregated racio-social society characterised by a rapid increase in poverty; an ever-growing demand for a welfare state; an overpopulated prison system; the emergence of a badly tolerated police state, as freedom of information gradually dissipates and a wave of intolerant ‘political correctness’ spreads; the astronomical and ever-increasing debt of the USA’s external deficit combined with the devaluation of stock market assets, burdening a country that thrives on the stock market (a worse crisis than that of 1929 is to be feared); a growing budgetary deficit; America’s rapidly diminishing hold over a world economy which it no longer dominates as a result of Asia’s increasing power; and the USA’s dread of being overtaken by China in the medium term and outperformed on every possible level including the military one.
Furthermore, the granite lump embodied by America’s judicial and constitutional institutions is now being challenged for the very first time in American history. G. W. Bush is the very first American president who, despite only being supported by a minority, was elected as a result of electoral fraud, as if the USA were some vulgar banana republic.
***
The USA has no notion of what it means to be deeply rooted, and its identity is akin to a sand castle that could collapse at any given moment. This is precisely why an artificial sort of patriotism is constantly necessary so as to prevent the potential crumbling of the amnesiac and kaleidoscopic American society. It is not a nation in any way, thus lacking any sense of history or common tradition and remaining devoid of social and ethnic unity. Even the English language now fails to unite this society, whose strongest cementing element lies in economic materialism, an element whose adhesive properties are very weak; for what characterises the American society is consumerism, punt-taking, and money worship.
So as to maintain this crumbling edifice in place and re-federate an immense society undergoing an identity and value crisis, the neoconservative administration has taken advantage of the 9/11 shock in order to implement the most classic recipe: a mixture of pseudo-patriotic militarism and superficial religiousness, amounting to puritan biblical deism, i.e. a sort of simplified Christianity. For what also accounts for the second Gulf War is the desire to reinvigorate a crisis-stricken American patriotism.
***
The problem is that, in the course of the 20th century, American minds were increasingly branded with a contradiction which the war in Iraq has now clearly highlighted: on the one hand, a callous and martial sort of voluntarism, one that is ever arrogant and domineering, and, on the other, an immense mental frailty, meaning a propensity for discouragement, fear and doubt (in Mogadishu, for instance, Clinton ordered the expeditionary corps to retreat following the slaughter of 18 American soldiers in an ambush). Americans may threaten others, but still lack the tenacity enjoyed by the British. At the slightest setback, they sink into depression and are volatile. If what they undertake is not immediately channelled into a success story (particularly in the military field), they begin to despair and simply give in. Both American society and the dreamworld upon which it has been established (the American Dream model being the embodiment of the paradise that the USA strives to impose upon the Earth) thus lack the necessary readiness to face the 21st century, whose harshness is bound to be pitiless.
We may yet witness the disappearance of the American imperial republic during the current century, simply because, when it comes down to it, it is but an enterprise, a company, being neither a society, nor a nation or people, a fact which sets it apart from Europe, China, India, etc. Akin to a company, the USA is bound to be ephemeral, having only experienced its moment of glory and its peak in the brief course of the 20th century. Moreover, the destruction of the Wo
rld Trade Center (its headquarters, so to speak) at the hands of fanatical Saudi Wahhabis on the 11th of September 2001 may have marked the beginning of its end.
E. A Western-Like War
The reason why the NAI lacks efficacy and remains counterproductive is that it has reinforced the very menace that it claimed to be able to eradicate. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Iraqi and Afghan ‘anti-terrorist’ campaigns (in addition to America’s unconditional support of Ariel Sharon) increased the numbers of the mujahideen volunteering to commit acts of terrorism. The devastating consequences will not come to light immediately, but will all be felt in good time.
Due to their mental simplicity and attempts at electioneering, the neoconservatives are only able to combat their invisible and underground adversaries using the mediatic and spectacular method of the cowboy that takes out his gun and opens fire in all directions. They deploy their army and bombard the enemy in an effort to reassure themselves and their people. Their 9/11 lesson has not been learnt at all.
The tragedy that has stricken the USA lies in its mental frailty. America’s sole understanding of war is that of a western film, in which the cavalry charges towards its enemy and takes the American Indians prisoners. It assumes that sophisticated weapons can somehow replace fieldwork and shadow warfare, remaining forever ‘modern’ in the 19th and 20th century sense of the word and never becoming ‘post-modern’ in the 21st century understanding of things. Having adopted ‘communication’ and promotional propaganda as its credo, the USA, strangely enough, lacks any and all know-how in this field. Even before the Iraqi war started, it became clear that America had fallen miserably short in the mediatic struggle that was meant to legitimise its intervention. The USSR was far more capable in matters of propaganda, having, for as long as 70 years, managed to mobilise a certain part of the European intelligentsia and media in support of its totalitarian system.
The struggle against terrorism can only stem for a counter-terrorism effort conducted by an equally terroristic state. In the face of Islamic terrorism, the only possible response must come from the appropriate secret services and lead to direct and discreet operations during which the targets are eliminated physically, without ever having to resort to a tribunal or court. The fact of detaining the Afghan and Arab warriors captured in Afghanistan under illegal circumstances that violate the Geneva conventions, as part of an attempt to ‘loosen their tongues’, is a pointless act of intimidation, one that, in fact, soils America’s image, sharpens the anti-American desire for vengeance and strengthens the recruitment capacities of terrorist networks, without any productivity on the part of the US military intelligence. This counter-terrorism effort must not founded upon the open elimination of terrorist leaders using missiles (as practiced by Israel), but on a discreet infiltration into the networks in question. Unfortunately for the USA, its extensive and bureaucratic secret services seem to lack the aptitude to keep the American government well-informed, despite their immense technological means. Dealing with terrorism as if it were a traditional military threat, while resorting to conventional military means, is a sign of astonishing stupidity on the part of the world’s main superpower, a superpower that is endowed with enormous intelligence services and filled with ‘specialists’, experts and think-tanks.
***
Ever since the 9/11 events, the NAI has been attaching great importance to spectacle. It is an old tendency that is becoming ever more pronounced. American power is more spectacular and televisual than genuine. The purpose is to intimidate the adversary through a mediatic demonstration of power. In practice, unfortunately, the USA lacks the ability to follow through. A mere image cannot replace reality. It is hardly sufficient for an empire to resort to financial incentives and attempt to convince others of its power through audio-visual propaganda in order impose itself. Although dominating peoples and their territories is mandatory in this regard, Washington is incapable of doing so. American leaders lack the slightest notion of what a ‘people’ actually is.
F. The End of American Democracy
— A Path towards Soft Despotism?
The NAI embodies the decline of American democracy; it is not a decline in a Caesarist or tyrannical sense, but rather one where the regime of what could be labelled ‘an authoritarian and mercantile oligarchy’ is reinforced, in accordance with the analysis conducted by Michel Bugnon-Mordant in The USA — A Global Manipulation (Favre editions). This trait had long been present before the neoconservatives took control of things. The NAI is founded upon this new form of power, a power that exploits electoral democracy as a mere facade.
There are two striking characteristics on this level: first of all, the American leaders are deeply implicated in financial schemes surrounding the military-industrial and oil complexes, sometimes taking advantage of their family ties and their belonging to the right clique. The Iraqi campaign was not organised solely due to ‘American’ geopolitical or geo-economic interests, but also (or most of all, perhaps) those of the petropolitical governmental elites (Bush, Cheney, etc.) or those of the prominent members of the military-industrial complex (Rumsfeld, Perle, etc.) It is thus not the USA’s ‘strategic oil provisions’ that acted as the decisive factor during the Iraqi war, but rather those petropoliticians’ desire to increase the provisions of their own bank accounts.
Furthermore, it must be said that Bush, who was elected President following an electoral scam, is not the true American leader at all (since his intellectual level prevents him from assuming such a role), but merely an influenceable head of state, a puppet that has been granted his position by the lobbies to whom he owes his obedience. Paradoxically, the new American regime sanctifies the decline of the presidential function. This notion is the focus of Warren P. Strobel’s brilliant demonstration (The Charlotte Observer, 29/03/2003), in which he states that G. W. Bush is ‘the toy of a machinery’ that enabled him to become President, although he obviously acts as its accomplice because of his family’s interests.
This leads me to make the following remarks:
1) American nationalists (meaning the neoconservatives’ enemies) claim that US militarism is in complete contradiction to American interests and only protects those of a certain oligarchy. From this perspective, the issue is not ‘American patriotism’, but rather the protection that lobbies are granted.
2) The NAI relies on a sort of regression towards a nepotic form of power that actually resembles that of oriental monarchies. Nothing is more reminiscent of the attitude espoused by current American leaders, whether those involved in petropolitics or the military industry, than the despotic practices of their Middle-Eastern counterparts, whose behaviour mirrors their own attachment to their family, clique and financial interests. Bush is actually the first American President to have taken over from his own father, just like Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.
3) It is not to be excluded that the neoconservatives will resort to every possible means to maintain themselves in power, including the rigging of elections. Never before has anyone seen a government make use of such a huge number of lies and such clumsy cynicism in its endeavours. In this respect, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson cannot even begin to compare. The USA may therefore end up facing a severe political and constitutional crisis, one that is unlike anything it has experienced since the Unionist victory.
America no longer enjoys ‘political sovereignty’ in the traditional sense, but is instead governed through an agreement involving different clans with diverging interests, all of which are ultimately financial in nature. Venturing even further, William Pfaff believes that, thanks to the Iraqi campaign, the NAI has led the American government across the Rubicon of ‘totalitarianism’ (in Which Country Is Next on the List, The International Herald Tribune, 10/04/2003):
When it comes down to it, the neoconservatives are fanatics. They think it worthwhile to kill people in the name of unfounded views. Traditional ethics posited that war was justified by legitimate self-defence. Totalitarian ethics justi
fies war through the intent to make peoples and societies “better”.
This view is a powerful one and deserves to be granted attention. However, it seems to be stricken with ‘something’ that draws it closer to the realm of science fiction. The unresolved question is whether the neoconservative effort is a footnote that will quickly be forgotten or the beginning of a lasting phenomenon.
***
The American paradox, which concerns both the various US governments and the American public culture, lies in the mixing of contradictory attitudes that cannot coexist harmoniously in the long term and will undoubtedly lead to domestic breakdown. These conflicting attitudes include idealistic messianism and low-rate pragmatism; philanthropic lyricism and a fascination for brutality; the praising of democracy and the practice of plutocracy; an emphasis on patriotism and the failure of the melting pot to the benefit of a society divided into impervious ethnic beehives; and, last but not least, an ambition to achieve global economic domination contrasting with the acceptance of the structural (and colossal) deficit of the American trade balance.
Chapter V: Europe — America’s Nightmare?
A. The NAI’s Anti-Europeanism and Francophobia
In an article published by Historia in March 2003, political scientist Rémi Kaufer demonstrated that the American secret services had initially financed both the construction of Europe and European federalist notions through the American Committee on United Europe. They believed that the USA would find it easier to manipulate a united Europe than to bring separate states under its control, thus achieving ideal conditions for the containment of Communism. Henceforth, the Americans never relinquished this vision, for while they live in dread of a ‘European power’ stretching along a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, they are thrilled at the sight of Europe’s current state, especially considering the perspective of Turkish EU membership and the emergence of a ‘new Europe’ in the east, a Europe that is as pro-American as it is dear to Donald Rumsfeld. However, this opinion is not shared by numerous neoconservative imperialists. The fact is that if Washington exerts all this effort to neutralise, divide and weaken the ‘European power’ through the WTO etc., it is because the Americans fear a European awakening, a transformation that would transfigure the current soft ideology embraced by Brussels into a vision that would rival the USA’s. Let us not forget that the NIA is characterised by the ideological (and stupid) novelty of refusing to tolerate any other genuinely global power than the American one.
A Global Coup Page 11