The Prince’s Seamless Garment
The “seamless garment” is a theological term referring to the need for consistency within Christian morality and philosophy. I argue that there is no inconsistency between President George W. Bush’ s objectives in invading Iraq and his continuing approval of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or his appointment of former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez to the position of Attorney General. There is no inconsistency, that is, if one believes that the president’s objectives—and those of his advisors—were primarily to make a show of force.
First, a familiar question: Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?
Many explanations and justifications have been offered by parties across the political spectrum and throughout the world.
But the explanation I now embrace is that George W. Bush and company wanted to give the Arab world a “show of force” and to do so they chose to dominate a state in the Middle East.
For obvious reason, Iraq, under the reign of the despot Saddam Hussein, became the most acceptable target for such a power play while the terrorist attacks against the United States, carried out largely by Saudi nationals on September 11, 2001, provided the occasion.
The reasons stated vs. the reasoning demonstrated
In the absence of any credible evidence that would buttress the previously stated rationale for invading Iraq (weapons of mass destruction) and in the face of mounting evidence that such claims were at best trumped up and at worst simply fabricated, we are now told that the invasion was to spread democracy and freedom.
If we are to believe that bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq are the intended good which justifies many an evil means, then it is only logical that we should find the same animus expressed throughout the political history of George W. Bush and his intimate advisors.
In fact, the President’ s record, and that of his innermost circle, betrays the contrary impulse: an understanding of politics that is based, almost exclusively, on domination and is thus, by its very nature, inextricably linked with such techniques as humiliation and destruction. (Whether one should call such uses of power a form of politics is a question for another day.)
The actual politics of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and advisor Karl Rove are, ostensibly, mostly and most clearly expressed on the domestic front. Yet even at home, this alliance has demonstrated it is possessed of the same militaristic mentality evinced in Iraq: a scorched-earth, winner-takes-all approach to every contest.
What interests Bush and company, on the home front, is domination. That appraisal is based on the now well-documented transformation of the U.S. Congress into an instrument of the executive branch and the concurrent campaign to do likewise with the judiciary.
In both of the presidential elections through which President Bush has commanded the reins of the state, his majority has been slim and the tenor of the debates overwhelmed by vicious character assassinations (both against members of his and his opposing parties).
Yet, despite the bitter stench of sulphur which lingered across the land on the morning after each of these elections, Bush and company have approached both the polity and fellow politicians as if the outcome in these contests had been an unequivocal and unanimous victory for their agenda; an agenda which, in many ways, has yet to be fully disclosed.
The leader of a deeply divided polity does not categorically rule out compromise unless, of course, he cares not a whit for the principles of democracy.
As for freedom, one need not even ask what kinds of social laws and mores the president has championed; though, of course, these are worthy of a deep and sustained analysis.
Rather, as has always been and forever will be the case: the true test of a man’ s respect for freedom is in his own domain, where the temptation to trample liberty is greatest and the price to be paid for such transgressions almost always seems to be nil.
So it is that the clearest evidence that Bush and company are not the least interested in promoting freedom is the vehemence (and, often, virulence) with which members of the President’ s party are policed and kept “on message,” in lockstep with the Oval Office, on almost every issue.
If the ruler does not tolerate dissent within his own party, how will he look upon his detractors in opposing camps—let alone, in foreign lands?
The seamless garment
Given that there is nothing in Bush and company’ s approach to domestic politics, past or present, which can corroborate his administration’ s stated goals of waging war on Iraq to bring it democracy and freedom, we must conclude that their reasons for doing so are, in fact, consonant with some other set of values. I suggest these values stem from a politics of domination.
Those of us who view the world through the framework of liberal democracy must look past our prejudices to see such an agenda clearly. While there is certainly a moral dimension to conquest—and ample historical evidence that all who wish to dominate are warped and deformed by this desire—there are also many seemingly pragmatic justifications for this understanding of power.
Simply put, subjugation is expedient. It may not be, in the long run, as expedient as persuasion but that drawback has seldom dissuaded those with the means from engaging in short-sighted campaigns of total war.
There is one more reason why I believe the true rationale for Bush and company’ s war against Iraq is indeed subjugation: the torture.
If the actual goal of conquering Iraq is to ward off potential anarchic and/or state-sponsored terrorist groups, and if one asserts that this mission will only be accomplished if the population from which it is assumed such threats may emanate is vanquished, whether morally or physically, then any acts of torture, any seemingly wanton killing perpetrated by the President’ s own forces are, in fact, quite reasonable.
Whereas Abu Ghraib and a war for democracy are at odds, Abu Ghraib and a war of domination are not at odds. In a war of subjugation, the rules of engagement must naturally include torture. In this light, Donald Rumsfeld has not been fired because he is fighting the war according to the President’s wishes.
Only those, within the armed forces and without, who reject such a strategy fault the abuse of U.S. power in Afghan and Iraqi. For those who understand the war against Iraq as the symbolic defeat and literal colonization of an expendable people, such sensational displays of violence are, in fact, precise uses of U.S. power. They are part and parcel of the “shock and awe” campaign which previously called for laser-guided missiles.
Once again, those of us who view torture as a fundamental abuse of power have an understanding of power that is based on the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate sources of authority. If your view of power is that it grants authority to whomever wields it, whether such power is attained by legitimate or illegitimate means, anything done with said authority is necessarily “wholesome.”
A politics of domination may provide just such a view of power.
Moreover, there is no need to “win the peace” if the objective is to wage war—perhaps, forever.
Recall the utter disdain that Bush and his handlers demonstrated for “nation building” in the 2000 presidential campaign. Consider the administration’s apparent and colossal lack of preparation: the disastrous shortage of troops, the shoddy budget estimates, the lack of resources and alliances. Are these really mistakes or the characteristics of a war waged for the sake of waging war?
Who controls the street?
Perhaps, then, the true tragedy of Bush and company’ s war against Iraq is that even on these terms, it has been a failure. There is only one criterium for evaluating the success of a conquest: who controls the streets?
The U.S. forces, under the leadership of the Command in Chief, President George W. Bush, do not control the streets of Iraq.
In fact, those streets are increasingly under the control of parties very much similar to Bush and company: men who wish to dominate the public square and will use any available means (religious language, a morality police, physical violence) to do so.