Protecting National Interests?

President Bush and the Project For a New American Century, the storefront operation of the neo-conservative movement, have many times made the case that our involvement in Iraq is because they are protecting America's "National Interests." At the core of all this would seem to be the oft-unanswered question, what are America's national interests?

The neo-cons certainly seem to define America's national interests far differently than I define America's national interests. To the neo-cons, average people seem to be no more than sheep put here on this planet to do their bidding and to fund the implementation of their ideology with our tax money and with the sweat of our brows. To them, America's national interests are defined by the interests of giant industries like defense, energy, pharmaceutical, and so on. Serving the will of the people doesn't even begin to enter into the equation for them. They seem to believe they are serving America by using their superior intellect to impose their will on the rest of us because only they have the true vision of what is good for America. They consistently seem try to justify whatever means they want to use as being necessary for the end they claim we desire. National interests for neo-cons, then, would seem to be all about the ends and as long as those ends are achieved, any means that were used must have been necessary and, therefore, acceptable.

I am personally far less concerned with whatever America's interests are (ends) as I am with the manner by which America seeks to protect those interests (means). Fairness, integrity, respect, dignity, openness...these are the sorts of things that will make the world a safer place for America. Neo-con strategies seem to be heavily reliant on terrorism, fear-mongering, torture, bullying, domestic spying, reprisals, threats, secrecy, saber-rattling, lies, nastiness, plumbing, false accusations, forgery, and overall bad manners.

During a recent discussion about Osama bin Ladin, his motives, and the actions of George Bush Sr. before the first Gulf War, I made the observation that a permanent military presence in the Middle East had been the "holy grail" of American Middle East policy since at least the mid-1970s. I also pointed out that Osama bin Ladin claims that the American military presence in Saudi Arabia following the first Gulf War is one of the major reasons he called for holy war against America. So ultimately, those who made the decision that "protecting America's national interests" in the Middle East required a long-term military presence in Saudi Arabia also chose to expose average Americans to tremendous risks. To the people who made these choices, it is clear that the geo-political benefits they sought from a permanent military presence far outweighed the increased possibility of any blow-back perpetrated on the American people.

So here's my answer to the question, "Does a long-term American military presence in the Middle East serve our national interests?" It certainly serves the interests of G.W. Bush and a lot of rich people who stand to make millions of dollars from it. But how well did it serve 2,996 people on 9/11? How well has it served the 2,964 dead coalition troops and the tens of thousands of troops who have been wounded and injured? And how well has it served the masses of our troops who will die an early death from DU poisoning and whose minds will be tortured by PSTD? How well has it served all of us at the gas pump? If all of this is about protecting our national interests, my evaluation of the neo-cons ability to protect our national interests is that they're not very good at it and maybe we should try something else. Hatred and upward wealth redistribution don't seem to be working too well.

You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar, as the old saying goes. Bush and his neo-con puppet-masters are drowning the world in vinegar. That's how I see it, anyway.