Growing up, my brother and I always used to argue about what to watch on television. Since 6 years separated us in age our tastes were sufficiently divergent to result in yelling, wrestling and punching. There was nothing democratic about the process we used in deciding what to watch since every vote taken would have been a 1 to 1 tie even if we both wanted to watch the same show anyway. Our mutual intransigence would have never allowed agreement. If I wanted to watch the Yankees, he wanted to watch the Mets. If he wanted to watch the Giants, I wanted to watch the Jets. Since I was older I always prevailed and we inevitably ended up watching my ridiculous choice (The Munsters) as opposed to his equally ludicrous choice (The Magic Garden). Luckily I can ascribe this idiotic, spiteful behavior to sibling rivalry and the fact that we were both under the age of 13 at the time. Understandably, my mother used to scream at me as I tyrannically opposed my brother's viewing choices, "Act your age, not your shoe size! He's your little brother."
Less understandably, in the debates surrounding which country the neocons want to invade next, their chronological age presents no such excuse. Despite all the fun we are having in Iraq, Jeffrey Bell, "a principal of Capital City Partners, a Washington consulting firm" has laid down the gauntlet in the February 6th The Weekly Standard in a puerile dare to President Bush. The title of his article, "Iran or Bust: The Defining Test of Bush's Presidency," reminds one of playground taunts of "Going Down the Slide Headfirst: Only Real 3rd Graders Do It!" The only difference is that more 3rd graders have been injured accepting such a dare in the 2005–2006 school year than "consultants" like Mr. Bell will ever be injured or killed in the Iraqi war of which they are such huge proponents.
Mr. Bell identifies the potential nuclear calamity with Iran as "the central crisis of the Bush Presidency." Has he already forgotten about Osama bin Laden or is he getting bored with the seemingly futile pursuit? Either way, our original attacker is out making videos and threatening us as we amass troops in Iraq so that foreign women can vote, American reporters can get kidnapped or nicked by shrapnel, and Halliburton can remain gainfully employed building 14 permanent military bases in the desert. Now it is time to forget all that and move on to Iran as per Mr. Bell. Needless to say, nowhere in the article does Mr. Bell mention that he will be setting an example of true commitment in practicing what he preaches by volunteering for military service. As one of my MBA professors used to quip in a self-deprecating manner, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach, consult." We can now add another phrase to the chain: "Those who pontificate as consultants should be the last ones to suggest that others fight wars on their behalf unless they are willing to fight themselves."
Bell's article strikes several other empty chords. He writes that, "The President served notice that foreign governments providing safe havens for terrorist enemies of the United States would be treated as if those governments were mounting terrorist operations themselves – that is, as enemies of the United States in a world war." Despite the overtly belligerent language, I assume Mr. Bell merely forgot to mention that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia get exemptions. As to why, that is anybody's guess. Trying to discern any coherent logical patterns or consistent philosophy in a warmongering chickenhawk's scratchings is akin to writing about abstract, modern art – there is no intrinsic value to it so just fill the page with sesquipedalian words and impress your readers with BS.
Bell also points out that one of the foundational elements of the Bush Doctrine was the recrudescence of the Wilsonian crusade to make the world safe for democracy, which in today's parlance is called "the promotion of democracy" since it sounds a little less proactive though no less threatening. Despite all the misgivings the ancient Greeks had about democracy, we persist in our crusade. But woe to the nation whose demos elects a leader we don't like. Hamas might very well be an enemy of the United States but, luckily for them, Mr. Bell is urging our military machine to focus further east on Iran, the site of our next "cakewalk."
Bell and his ilk have imputed a teleology to President Bush that is a long way from the President's 2000 debate pledge to reduce the number of US troops overseas. No one with the slightest grasp of reality considered such a comment from W to be any more trustworthy than his father's earlier tax pledge which only proved to the American people that one ability each and every one of us lacks – the ability to read lips – is more important than those of us with working ears previously thought necessary. While 9/11 changed the geostrategic map, our subsequent actions have been mere diversions from the pressing matter of catching Osama bin Laden and his minions. Looking for al Qaeda (along with WMD's, Kurd corpses, and Elvis for that matter) in Iraq has gotten us nowhere whereas free elections in Afghanistan, while making the nation builders beat their chests with pride, only resulted in more videotapes from Public Enemy #1 threatening our destruction. Bell now proposes that Bush's final test will be Iran and its potential nuclear capabilities. This he sees as the test which will define the Presidency of George W. Bush and is, in essence, his telos, or ultimate end.
Could there be a glimmer of hope in this challenge to an easily influenced Commander in Chief? Might our global crusade end with Iran? Could Iran be the teleogical end of Bush's presidency? If recent history is any guide, obviously not. The list of bogeymen and rogue nations who scare "our brave men out of uniform," so faithfully manning their ink-spewing, jingoistic think tanks, is longer than the line for the women's restroom at the intermission of The Phantom of the Opera. But if there is one thing that gives us hope it is this: after we "do our thing" in Iran (with Mr. Bell most likely providing invaluable cheerleading from his cubicle), the list of countries we need to invade, implement democracy in and then garrison thousands of troops in forever, will be one shorter. Such a prospect is hardly heartwarming. Let's just hope a nuclear conflagration is not in the cards since most cubicles could not withstand a geothermal blast.
February 9, 2006
