March 13, 2003
By this time next week, America will most likely be at war in the Middle East. I'm willing to
bet that the latest talk of deadline extensions is merely an attempt to wrangle some small element of
surprise out of one of the most talked-about deployments in the history of warfare. Monday, March
17th was once floated as a deadline for Iraq to disarm: this probably means that the American attack
will most likely occur shortly before that date.
Or the attack could indeed occur on that date, in the wee hours of the morning, Baghdad time. The
Bible-studying Bush would rather not start a war on a Sunday (at least the airstrikes on Afghanistan
started late enough in the day for him to make church), so expect the first American airstrikes on
Iraq to occur shortly after midnight local time (this timing well into the night would also lull
the defenders into thinking that they had made it through another night without war).
What is becoming more and more obvious is that war will come without the authorization of the
United Nations, and that Tony Blair's premiership will most likely not survive the conflict. And
what is most obvious is that this is the beginning of a New New World Order.
The United States is prepared to go it completely alone in this conflict, a pre-emptive war
which could very well set the tone of the early twenty-first century. In a world where a vial of
powder has the potential to destroy a civilization, security measures are needed. And it will
come up again and again that such security can only be achieved through war.
It's becoming increasingly clear that security warriors cannot wait for unanimity to
magically appear in the world community.
The United Nations has shown itself to be a modern-day League of Nations, a forum for talk whose
sum of power is less than the parts of power of its member states. When nations like South Korea
and Kuwait have been invaded by their neighbors, the U.N. Security Council has handsomely shown
its decisiveness and authorized appropriate military action. But, in this century, civilized nations
cannot wait until a conventional invasion has already occurred before taking action against an aggressor. As September 11th
demonstrated, the invasion won't necessarily be conventional, be against a neighbor, or leave the
victim with the means to respond. Potential victims can't wait for an attack, and they can't wait
for approval from multiple peers, each with their own agenda.
No, America will indeed have to go it alone, completely if need be. What will be needed in the
twenty-first century will be a strong executive authority that cannot be found in a committee and
can only be found in a nation's leadership. It is a big question whether George W. Bush, even as
he presses forward with war, exudes the kind of authority the world needs in the post-9-11 era.
The answer to that question is "no." Consensus is for Congress, not for the Presidency. The
Founding Fathers made the President Commander-in-Chief for the simple reason that the kind of
decisive decisions war necessitates can only be made by one person. Those decisions should not be
left to the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, or anyone else. The lack of wisdom in the
nation's last choice for president is now becoming patently clear: a leader must lead, not be led.
In the White House, at least, it is up to one person to make the decisions and up to all others to
implement them.
Our current lack of leadership will most likely come back to haunt us, in more ways than one.
Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, the Justice Department drew up
legislation for Congressional approval which ultimately became the USA Patriot Act. While the
final version that passed gave broad new powers to the federal government, the initial
draft of that legislation included even more extreme provisions, such as an indefinite suspension
of habeas corpus (i.e., government agents could thus detain anyone for any length of time for
no reason). It is ironic that the federal government was rewarded with more power after it failed
to use what power it had. It wasn't a lack of government power that allowed 9-11 to happen; it was
a lack of government competence which ultimately must be accounted for at the top.
And the next terrorist attack is only a matter of time. Already the Justice Department is
drawing up new legislation (most likely in anticipation of a war-provoked attack) that contains
serious inroads into judicial oversight. Soon, we might very well face the prospect of a world
power defending lives while it erodes the liberty to live those lives. That's a New World Order I
(for one) would rather not see.
