It is with increasing interest and anxiety that I have been following the national debate on a war in Iraq. Interest, because the actions we take in the coming months--especially as regards the Bush Doctrine of preemption--will set a course for our foreign policy for decades. Anxiety, because among all the arguments and criticism, an obvious solution is being neglected.
Let me explain: Liberal critics of President George W. Bush's administration have argued that a strike on Iraq, if it happens at all, must be predicated on multilateral support from the nations of the world. No multilateralism, no war. Their arguments are twofold: First, it is wrong for America to act in defiance of world opinion; second, a lack of support, especially from countries like Saudi Arabia and Turkey in the region, will severely jeopardize an invasion's chance for success.
These are valid points. But I believe we can kill deux birds with une stone, as they say in France.
We must conquer Europe.
I really don't understand how the foreign policy elites have missed such an elegant solution. For one, a subject Europe will surely stop its complaining about American "imperialism" and let us get on with defending our freedoms by toppling Saddam Hussein. Moreover, Europe is a natural base for attacking the Middle East--it's only 2,406 miles from Paris to Baghdad. In sum, wartime necessity justifies a course of action most Americans have secretly desired for years. It would be prudent, though, to answer some key objections that may arise:
- Isn't Europe a whole continent?
No. Actually, it's just a peninsula of Asia. But that aside, I think it's reasonable to believe that America can succeed where even Napoleon failed. After all, what we accomplished in Afghanistan had previously escaped Alexander the Great, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. I simply point to America's military superiority over the combined forces of all the European nations (excepting England, which will become the 51st state).
These are the nations that couldn't even muster the troops to fight Yugoslavia, a small-time aggressor in their own backyard. These are the nations that pump their tax dollars into massive social welfare programs, dependent on the United States for most of their national security. These are the nations proposing a "Rapid Reaction Force" consisting of a Swedish bureaucrat and a horse. Overall, Germany has 32 soldiers; France has five. We have 1.4 million. We can take them.
- Won't conquering Europe compromise our American ideals?
Not really. Our real problem is hypocrisy. For years, people have argued along the following lines: "America claims to support freedom and democracy, so why did it sponsor a coup in Chile/support a dictator in Pakistan/sell arms to Iran, etc., etc." What we need is consistency--with a foreign policy centered on world conquest, no one can accuse us of talking out of both sides of our mouth, instantly negating most anti-American arguments.
A policy like that is true realism. Sure, we have people who call themselves realists today, who claim that America's national interest is their chief goal, but they always set an arbitrary boundary line. We can have protective steel tariffs, but we can't invade Europe? Where's the consistency there? What's more in the national interest than conquering Europe?
- Won't conquering Europe hurt how America is perceived by the world?
Can it get any worse?
The rest of the world thinks we're imperialists no matter what we do. Topping the bestseller lists in France is L'Effroiable Imposture (The Appalling Deception), a book that claims the Pentagon and Twin Towers were destroyed with truck bombs and remote-controlled planes by the U.S. military in order to justify war in Afghanistan and the Middle East. We can either continue vainly defending ourselves to a deaf world, or we can choose to live up to our image. Besides, think of how satisfying it will be to say, "You thought McDonald's was imperialism? I'll show you imperialism, Pierre!"
Look--history tells us that no hegemon lasts forever. How much longer do we have, half a century? Twenty-five years? And what will we have to say to history when our time has passed--that we half-assed it? Let's make it interesting.
Rob Goodman is a Trinity sophomore. His column appears every other Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.