excerpts.

It’s a bit boring to rehash, but people keep doing it: Bush lied us into war. Jack had a fanboy on his blog, commenting random Democrat sayings and asked this: What were the proper justifications for war and would the American people have believed them?

It struck me that this was a good question, amid all the vehement “Bush lied, People died” yawnable thematics that were going on. What were the justifications for war and would those’ve actually convinced the American people? Upon some reflection over the Cliffs Note’s of history in my head, I realized that the only valid justification for war in the last 20 or 30 years has actually been the threat of nuclear bombing. During the Cold War, “Duck & Cover” was the fear that was drilled into young school children with clever black & white instructional videos, Mutually Assured Destruction and the nuclear arms race, the fear of 3 Mile Island’s fallout, the constant reviling of nuclear energy – these are the memories that come up. More recently, North Korea gets light water reactors, the Iraq war hinged on aluminum tubes and Iran’s getting centrifuges. Nuclear and nuclear ambitions really stick out as the only thing that really scares Americans.

Why that’s the only thing that scares us Americans is a whole other pool to dive into. With our fear of another 3 Mile Island (which was wholly contained, unlike Chernobyl), France and Japan have successfully powered themselves on “peaceful” nuclear energy, Albright during the Clinton years plied the reticent North Koreans with light water reactors, and India was helped in getting civilian nuclear power. (Granted, the last two are failures, not successes, since both nations went on to develop nuclear weaponry with our help, but I’m straying from the point.)

After the Cold War, our collective assholes needed some rest from being so clenched. With the Russians defeated, there was also a void for the object of our collective hatred. Our Clinton years really made us ignore foreign policy and involvement with other countries. It was a halcyon time, with budget surpluses and domestic foibles. Some of our military boys got shot here or there, but those were nefarious “small wars” started by Reagan and were Cold War holdovers - distasteful and easily ignored by the American people. The UN was allowed to run roughshod over the world, filling a power void they were really never meant to fill.

What wasn’t priority, if it ever was, was reclaiming the US’s dominance or “hand” in international relations. The American people have a very non-committal relationship with anything outside the US other than a “great enemy” and the Russians were destitute. It’s not that we didn’t fear, it’s that we didn’t (and honestly, still don’t) care.

Our culture passively asserts our dominance, and we tend to be chagrined whenever anyone points out the negative effects of Levi’s jeans (black markets) or Coca-Cola (environmental damage).

Additionally not a priority, was changing the status quo especially when it meant “doing something” – a la the failed containment of Saddam Hussein by 10+ years of sanctions through 14+ UN resolutions. The UN was failing quietly. American people don’t realize that it’s actually our responsibility to make sure that the UN doesn’t fail, regardless of the arguments about how much back dues we owe to them (or the other side of the argument, how much of their budget we actually do provide).

Another priority, that was more pointedly relevant, especially after 9/11 which the American people were ambivalent of, if not completely ignorant of, was the reestablishment of America as not a paper tiger. During the Clinton years, we ignored attacks on our sovereignty (the Cole, Khobar Towers, Berlin nightclubs, Tanzanian embassies) as random outliers. Whoops, big mistake. What to do about it, though? With no real understanding, lashing out worked ok for a while, but then Americans get confused. There’s no ability to understand geopolitical strategy beyond “Saddam was contained and secular” or any other short, three word chants.

An overt attack on Afghanistan and covert pressure on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Egypt and Sudan really wasn’t going to cut it for the 9/11 families and the revenge takers. The logical conclusion of bombing a country who’d literally been bombed for the last 20 years was what? Nothing. Afghanistan’s a strategic backwater. Continuing, what’s the logical conclusion of covert American pressure in the region? Blowback. Blowback and a lack of control of the already unstable WMD market. Removing the low hanging fruit of instability – Saddam Hussein – would literally force our country back into the terrorists’ faces with a bold and committed move. It’s too bad that the American people don’t find (re)asserting American priorities on people who’re clearly harmful (from terrorists to people gaming the system, like Mr. Saddam) as anywhere near an American priority. In a way, they’re right – It’s never been an American priority.

None of these work nearly as well (if at all) on the American psyche as “immanent threat of nuclear attack.” And that’s what we lead with to get the most people on board. Got your attention, didn’t it?

(And, no, “further goals” or negative consequences of war aren’t selling points but are a whole other discussion.)