The West: Caught Between War and Peace

George W. Bush hasn’t learned anything from America’s failure in Vietnam, which left such a negative mark on his generation.

After the collapse of communism, America considered itself to be the dominant superpower in the world. But after the 9/11 attacks, which showed “great’’ America’s vulnerability, Bush was disoriented. I remember this tragic day very well. Bush then reacted like a Texan under attack and with maximum violence: “an eye for an eye.” He failed to understand the new phenomenon that was ahead of him, the one that was later called “global terrorism.” He declared a “war on terrorism’’ without even listening to his allies in “old Europe” — Germany and France — who rightfully opposed his plans.

He forgot about the solidarity manifested by the whole world in all continents. He thought only of carrying out reprisals, seeing as America was, and still is, a military superpower. Only nowadays, there is a sense of vulnerability, as well as an awareness of the colossal errors that were made since 9/11 and from which there has yet to be recovery.

Almost 10 years have passed — the first decade of the 21st century. And terrorism, while weakened, hasn’t been defeated. On the contrary, nobody knows where Bin Laden is or whether he is still alive, but Al-Qaeda is operating and present on various continents, even if the organization appears to have weakened.

In the meantime, the world has changed at a fast pace. Power balances have shifted. China became the second global superpower in (peaceful) competition with the United States. New emerging economies appeared and today they weigh heavily on the international scene. The U.N. lost its prestige, especially as a moral entity, since it didn’t have the strength to reach its Millennium Development Goals or make others reach them. The height of the new international complexity was the financial and economic global crisis which affects, in different ways, all the countries in the world. And it is still not fully known how to overcome it. The overly optimistic should watch out…

The European Union has gone off course and happens to be going through its worst phase in its history, which started, as we all know, last century with the Treaty of Rome of 1957. Unfortunately there are no moral political leaders in today’s Europe who are able to be imposing like past leaders. This is a terrible and, at the moment, irreversible disaster. The euro, undoubtedly one of Europe’s biggest achievements, has had its own crisis: it threatened to separate the 27 European countries, even though only 16 of them had adopted it. Nevertheless, it seems the risk has passed partly thanks to China. China understood that the disappearance of the euro would leave its currency, the reminbi, face to face with the dollar, which could cause even more imbalance in the system… It was a rescue that Europe, and particularly Germany, should never forget.

In January 2009, after an extraordinary electoral victory, the African-American Barack Hussein Obama — such an unusual and unexpected phenomenon of our times — became President of the United States. He was the antipode of his predecessor, not only for being a Democrat and having a completely opposing vision for the future, but mostly because he seemed to be in line with the greatest presidents who pioneered the best moments in American history: Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy. As a matter of fact, he is a president that was considered to be deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize before he even served the first half of his term in office. The applause was almost unanimous.

But the weight of the world simply fell on his shoulders as soon as he was appointed, and in such a colossal way! There was the global economic and financial crisis whose epicenter was Wall Street; there were the major banks threatened by bankruptcy, which he had to avoid; there were all the crooked deals and scandals, in tax havens and elsewhere, which followed the threat of bankruptcy and which continue to go mostly unpunished. The exception is Bernard Madoff. Barack Obama did get Congress to approve a moralizing law which will stand as an indelible landmark in American history, just like the Health Care Reform Bill. But the most important things are yet to be achieved because the crisis is not over, although it has been tamed. There are a few critical areas on the international scene which have to be addressed.

It was precisely in this field that Obama made some memorable, well-known speeches, and it is only because of them that he deserved the Nobel Prize. However, what matters now is to put words into action, even though, as the saying goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day.”

In the Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues and is still at the origin and center of everything. The Jewish-American lobby, although making some progress, does not seem to understand that if Israel doesn’t change its politics and come to a peace agreement recognizing Palestine as a state, Israel itself will be crushed by the Muslim world.

On the other hand, with NATO’s unlawful backing, the invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan were two colossal mistakes made by Bush. Even worse, they were crimes. I humbly remember that this is something I denounced from day one. I did it while many others kept quiet to see which way the wind would blow. The war in Afghanistan also had NATO engaged, which will cost the organization dearly. And in a certain way, it also had U.N. support. But this doesn’t mean that the operation was acceptable, especially after the failure of the Soviet experience, which was, as a matter of fact, furtively contradicted by the English and the Americans. That is precisely why Al-Qaeda was born — one day I am sure this will come to light.

As for the invasion of Iraq, it was even worse. It was a unilateral decision made by Bush, who counted on the support of his accomplice Tony Blair, as well the support of José Maria Aznar and José Manuel Barroso, who hosted the summit of shame which took place in the Azores. Bush invoked fake arguments, but they only fooled those who let themselves be fooled…

Now to be fair, Obama has always been against the invasion. And he always claimed he would withdraw the American troops from Iraq once elected. The deadline is near and no one knows what state the poor country will be left in after the troops’ withdrawal — a country in the middle of a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis; a country ruined due to the recklessness of an American president (unpunished to this day) who sacrificed thousands of innocent lives on both sides while mercenary companies made fortunes.

The situation in Afghanistan is worse because it involves two international organizations: NATO, which will have a hard time surviving the outcome of its involvement, and the U.N., which approved a war it undoubtedly knew would not end well.

Perhaps due to his very formal legal and political training, Obama has never said he would withdraw his troops from the Afghan quagmire. On the contrary, he sent 30000 more soldiers and pressured his European allies into deploying more contingents. And yet this is a situation that seems to have no solution — it is getting worse every day. This is what many notorious magazines that had access to the Pentagon documents, which were secret up until now, suggest, including the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel. They all agree on one thing: the war in Afghanistan seems to have no solution, despite the 135000 soldiers from 46 countries on the ground — 95000 of which are American — and despite costing the American Treasury more than 300 billion USD. Why is this? Mainly it is because the Americans as well as NATO were never perceived as liberators but as invaders, not to mention the fact that Karzai’s government was accused of corruption, abuse of power, nepotism, incompetence and association with the warlords and opium traffickers, and maybe even the Taliban and the Pakistani secret services. Pakistan has always played both sides in this war.

The New York Times, in an article by Nicholas Kristof, writes that the war in Afghanistan “has been, by far, the costliest war in American history aside from World War II” and that “for the cost of just one soldier in Afghanistan for one year, we could start about 20 schools there.” Obama has asked Congress for an increase in military expenses of “6.1 percent higher than the peak under the Bush administration.’’ On the other hand, the Arab News Agency, quoted by Aijaz Zaka Syed, says, “President Obama faces a stark choice in Afghanistan: leave now with some dignity intact or await the humiliation of total and comprehensive defeat, the kind that came the way of the Russians.’’ It also states that “The [U.S.] coalition has been using Reaper drones to hunt and kill ‘usual suspects’ by remote control from the safety of a base in the remote Nevada desert in the US” and that “Not surprisingly, many of these ‘Taliban leaders’ happen to be innocent civilians.”

Christoph Schwennicke wrote along the same lines in Der Spiegel: “It is difficult for politicians to admit they were wrong. But when it comes to Afghanistan, the consequences of not doing so could be high. It is time for the West to cut its losses and withdraw.” This is the terrible dilemma Obama is facing. And let’s not forget all the other issues: the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, global warming, the global financial crisis and so on. I am sad to say that if he gives in to the industrial military complex Eisenhower talked about, Obama will have an undeserved end in American and world history.

In the meantime, Holland has had the courage to announce the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan by the end of December. In my humble opinion, Portugal should do the same. The faster the better.