by George Soros
Published on February 5, 2004 By JEPEL In International
New Page 1 An interesting article by one big player of global capitalism. He probably hasn't write it alone, nevertheless the content worth reading.

Published Monday January 26, 2004 in The Guardian by George Soros

Original article


The US is now in the hands of a group of extremists

Fundamentalism has spawned an ideology of American supremacy



The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the pernicious Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action, and it elicited an allergic reaction worldwide - not because anyone had a good word to say about Saddam Hussein, but because we insisted on invading Iraq unilaterally without any clear evidence that he had anything to do with September 11 or that he possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The gap in perceptions between America and the rest of the world has never been wider. Abroad, America is seen as abusing the dominant position it occupies; opinion at home has been led to believe that Saddam posed a clear and present danger to national security. Only in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion are people becoming aware they have been misled.

Even today, many people believe that September 11 justifies behaviour that would be unacceptable in normal times. The ideologues of American supremacy and President Bush personally never cease to remind us that September 11 changed the world. It is only as the untoward consequences of the invasion of Iraq become apparent that people are beginning to realise something has gone woefully wrong.

We have fallen into a trap. The suicide bombers' motivation seemed incomprehensible at the time of the attack; now a light begins to dawn: they wanted us to react the way we did. Perhaps they understood us better than we understand ourselves.

And we have been deceived. When he stood for election in 2000, President Bush promised a humble foreign policy. I contend that the Bush administration has deliberately exploited September 11 to pursue policies that the American public would not have otherwise tolerated. The US can lose its dominance only as a result of its own mistakes. At present the country is in the process of committing such mistakes because it is in the hands of a group of extremists whose strong sense of mission is matched only by their false sense of certitude.

This distorted view postulates that because we are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side. That is where religious fundamentalism comes together with market fundamentalism to form the ideology of American supremacy.

We may have more difficulty in perceiving the absurdity of pursuing supremacy by military means, because we have learned to rely on military power and we particularly feel the need for it when our very existence is threatened. But the most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. To make the war on terrorism the centrepiece of our national strategy is an abdication of our responsibility as the leading nation in the world. The US is the only country that can take the lead in addressing problems that require collective action: preserving peace and economic progress, protecting the environment and so on.

Whatever the justification for removing Saddam, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or unwittingly, President Bush deceived the American public and Congress and rode roughshod over our allies' opinions.

The gap between the administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. We have put at risk not only our soldiers' lives but the combat readiness of our armed forces. We are overstretched and our ability to project our power has been compromised. Yet there are more places where we need to project our power than ever. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons; Iran is doing so clandestinely. The Taliban is regrouping in the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. The costs of occupation and the prospect of permanent war weigh on our economy, and we are failing to address festering problems both at home and globally. If we ever needed proof that the neo-cons' dream of American supremacy is misconceived, Iraq has provided it.

It is hard to imagine how the plans of the defence department could have gone more awry. We find ourselves in a quagmire that is in some ways reminiscent of Vietnam. Having invaded Iraq, we cannot extricate ourselves. Domestic pressure to withdraw is likely to build, as in the Vietnam war, but withdrawing would inflict irreparable damage on our standing in the world. In this respect, Iraq is worse than Vietnam because of our dependence on Middle East oil.

Nobody forced us into it; on the contrary, everyone warned us against it. Admittedly, Saddam was a heinous tyrant and it was a good thing to get rid of him. But at what cost? The occupying powers serve as a focal point for attracting terrorists and radicalising Islam. Our soldiers have to do police work in full combat gear.

And the cost of occupation is estimated at a staggering $160bn for the the fiscal years 2003-2004 - $73bn for 2003 and $87bn in a supplemental request for 2004 submitted at the last minute in September 2003. Of the $87bn, only $20bn is for reconstruction, but the total cost of reconstruction is estimated at $60bn. For comparison, our foreign aid budget for 2002 was $10bn.

There is no easy way out. The Bush administration is eager to get the United Nations more involved but is unwilling to make the necessary concessions. We have no alternative to sticking it out and paying the price for our mistake. Eventually a different president with a different attitude to international cooperation may be more successful in extricating us.

The US is not the only country at the centre of the global capitalist system, but it is the most powerful and it is the main driving force behind globalisation. The European Union may equal the US in population and gross national product, but it is far less united and far less comfortable with globalisation. In military terms, the EU does not even qualify as a power, because members make their own decisions.

Insofar as any nation is in charge of the world order, it is the US. That is not to suggest that other countries are exempt from having to concern themselves with the wellbeing of the world. Their attitudes are not without consequence, but it is the US that matters most.

If Bush is rejected in 2004, his policies can be written off as an aberration and America resume its rightful place in the world. But if he is re-elected, the electorate will have endorsed his policies and we will have to live with the consequences. But it isn't enough to defeat Bush at the polls. The US must examine its global role and adopt a more constructive vision. We cannot merely pursue narrow, national self-interest. Our dominant position imposes a unique responsibility.

© George Soros 2004


Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Feb 05, 2004
I hope that he is not re-elected. We don't need another four years of this stupidity.
on Feb 05, 2004
It is interesting that the post here has an identical titile to one I put up as to Richard Perle and the American Heritage Institute. That post held that the "neo-Conservative" claimants are actually reject Democrats who have attached themselves to vice-President Richard Cheney and by this tactic, insinuated themselves into postions of influence in this Administration to carry out a pro-Zionist agenda using our sons and daughters to die for Israeli causes in the Middle-East.
As to Soros, I would ask him why he is supporting a Democratic Candidate to oppose Bush. If he opposes Bush he should first be seeking to have an alternative funded within the Republican party. There is John Buchanon and Tom Laughlin running for the Republican ticket he could fund. I frankly find 'Billy Jack' to have impeccable credentials, even being a former Green Beret and always arguing for peace before war as a veteran who has been there, seen the horror of war, and not a coward who would run from such responsibility anyhow. First fund them as alternative Candidates. This would take support from Bush within his own Party, which is where his voters are.
Soros is a UN type of guy which I oppose completely. I say we get out of Iraq NOW. The WMD are not there, Sadam is in custody. Our mission is accomplished and our troops have wives, husbands, and kids to care for. F--- the Iraqi husbands, wives, and kids. We gave them a new start and what they do with it is on them, not us or a U.N.
I also don't care about Pakistan, North Korea or Iran. We have nukes and it is hypocritical to assert no one else can develop defense systems for their Nation. It is the function of any government to do so. Like a car, which was marketed to end horse dung pollution, the nuke is going to happen sooner or later, and bring with it the negative effects. We should be working to reduce those negative effects not suppressing them. Trying to deny technology advances won't work. We have to have a foreign policy that fosters peace with nations not war, which drives the whole nuke issue.
It is our well-earned paranoia from being invasive, dis-respectful, and criminal in our dealings with other Sovereign nations that has to be changed. Nukes are going to eventually happen. If we change our policy and let Israel go on being the hate monger while we respect other Nations right to exist, they'll nuke Israel not us and that will let us build while they tear down, create while they destroy. How many new WTC's could we have made if we stayed out of Iraq? We're wasting money we could use for ourselves and getting nothing from it but dead and crippled vets one by one.
Tell Soros to jump in a lake, we're not in charge of the "world order" and should draw back from NAFTA, GATT, and liberating women who don't want to be liberated, wear jeans, or vote for candidates WE dictate to them. Voting for S&B frat bother to Bush, Sen. John Kerry won't change a thing, and all the money in the world won't buy change, George. It has to be in the heart and vision of the Candidate. Again I ask, "What do you call someone who does the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?"
on Feb 05, 2004
Good grief what a bunch of crap. No wonder left wingers are increasingly looking like a bunch of freaks.
on Feb 05, 2004
Wahkonta Anathema: i was sure that I had already read the title somewhere but I couldn't find it.
There's a point where I think Soros is right, US can't be the current world leader without being responsible and so the need to be constructive and try to unify the world around the principle it claim to defend. The big issue here is that too much ideology and not enough pragmatism is coming from the ruling of the current administration.
However, I wanted to be a little provocative about the title. I think it's right when I see Brad's answer. I'm just sorry that such an articulate writer can develop so low argumentation...
on Feb 05, 2004

No, it's just the Bush hating stuff has gotten so old that it's hard to take anyone seriously at this point who is still ranting about Bush. You sound like those right wing nuts in the 90s who thought Clinton was destroying the world. 

Here's a clue: Who sent the US into more countries (even when adjusted for 4 years vs 8): Clinton.  How easy you forget the number of countries the US bombed, invaded, etc. under Clinton. But hey, that's okay. His social policies agreed with yours. 

If you can't be intellectually honest then why should people take what you write seriously? If Bush were magically a Democrat, I suspect you would be applauding his actions. I particularly liked the "rode roughshod over our allies objections". I see, so in your world France and Germany being against something trumps the support of UK, Spain, most of eastern Europe, Italy, Australia, Japan, and countless other countries. You throw out left wing talking points as if they are somehow accepted fact.

Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, Haiti, and probably a few I can't remember off the top of my head are countries the US used military force in when it's a Democrat doing it.  But oh no, a Republican uses military force in TWO countries (both of which were ones Clinton used military forces on) and suddenly we're invading everyone.

And technically, Clinton, not Bush, should have been the one to have invaded Iraq when Iraq renigged on its cease fire requirements. Heck, Saddam should have been out as soon as the assasination attempt on former President Bush came out.

on Feb 06, 2004
Frogboy,
First, I haven't written this article, I have copy on my blog, because I approve a parts of its content. I think a lot of its arguments are valid and should be respected.
Second, only the foreign policy of the US is discussed there. As I'm not a US citizen, the social policy of any US president are not really touching me. I don't have to vote in US, I prefer countries with more reliable polling system. I'm not registered democrat, I'm not even democrat, I don't know what my political sympathy would be called in US as the whole politics is shifted to the right. If Bush would be democrate, well, I think I would be still against the concept of pre-emptive war. I don't think of any of the country you are naming have been pre-emptively attacked by the US for false reason. Tenet said yesterday that CIA had never told that Iraq was an imminent threat, this was politician spinning.
I don't know who said that war should not be let to the military alone, that it shouldn't be let to the business man either is probably the lesson of this war.... (and In the case of GWB, a bad one...)



on Feb 06, 2004

Jepel: You have yet to explain how Bush's actions are different than Clinton's.

Where was the outrage then? Clinton was far far more unilateral in his actions than Bush.  The US has more allies in Iraq than it did for most of World War II.

The United States was attacked. It is responding in a way that is supported by the majority of the American people. Even if we knew for certain Iraq had zero weapons of mass destruction we still would have invaded.

on Feb 06, 2004
The United States was attacked by whom?

The US did invade Afganistan for refusing to hand over the attackers and the whole world stood behind them in support.
Iraq had nothing to do with the US being attacked so don't try to imply it did (and yes the following statement
The United States was attacked. It is responding in a way that is supported by the majority of the American people. Even if we knew for certain Iraq had zero weapons of mass destruction we still would have invaded.
does imply that)

As for Sudan, Clinton did make a bad mistake and was rebuffed by the international community for it. Turned out intelligence got it wrong. I think the big difference between Clinton and Bush foreign policies was that Clinton worked with the international community where as Bush tries to force them to his will. I do agree with you though that Clinton should have dealt with Saddam,

Paul.

on Feb 06, 2004
I don't think you can say that Clinton was more unilateral than Bush. Looking Back, Bush was the president that had wasted the sympathy and the support generated from 9/11. Anti americanism is now much more spread that under clinton. Remember, before the war started, we could see the biggest global protest the war. In UK, it was the biggest protest ever...

As youprobably now, there are no proved linked between Al quiada and Saddam. Under Saddam Iraq was secular and fundamentalism was strictely controled. Except their hates against america, they didn't have so much connection...

No one can't tell how clinton would have react confronted to 11/9, I would bet that Afghanistan war would have happen, I have some doubt about Iraq.

on Feb 06, 2004

Feel free to explain how Clinton worked more with international agencies. When he attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, and Sudan he had no international mandate whatsoever.

 

on Feb 06, 2004
Well at least it's not in the hands of left wing extremists. Then we'd be in real trouble.

VES
on Feb 07, 2004
I don’t want to go into Clinton/Bush Comparison. First, I'm relatively ignorant about this period, Second whatever did Clinton I don't see easily the connection with Bush. I have found a little talk about Clinton policy vs Bush at http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=6942. If you are really interrested.
Brad: would you call Sudan, Iraq and Afganistan a war? Was a coallition of the willing gathered in order to do it and pay for it?
Oops: very strong argument... I hardly know how to answer...
on Feb 07, 2004
NOTE: ARTICLE 1, Section 8, grants to Congress the power to daclare War. The Congress has a right to inquire of the President if he deceived them into such an action.
JEPEL: Be aware that some seek to lead you to distract yourself from the issue you post and thereby reduce the blog to a argument on side issues. I try to keep people on topic and make them respond to the blog not take it into trivia, where some seem more comfortable. Let the article speak for itself. By holding it to the topic, they will not persisit as they merely want to bury the real issue in minutiae. It is a technique you should be aware of. I once had a guy try to run the 9/11 cover-up into the ground and trivialize it by such technique, but kept using his response as a way to give even more links to info and evidence. When he saw it only made things worse to persisit, he went away. I haven't heard from him on any post in quite some time.
on Feb 07, 2004
Whahkonta: I know you are right and I'm aware of the process. Usually when I post an article that is not mine, I try to keep my though down as I prefere reading what other think. It's start to be relatively predictible, and I like people to develop an argument, not doing some useless remark. So I try to make them going on

As far as it goes, I have read more aggressive comments without any good point so far from the opposant of my articles in general. I don't mind. They don't help themself..

Thanks for your advice.
on Feb 07, 2004

I was trying to point out that the article you posted failed to make its points because the same thing could be said of nearly every administration.

Using the yardstick the original author used, every US President, even Carter, was an "extremist". I used Clinton as an example because he was just President 4 years ago and had commited naked acts of war against many different nations and yet there was little outcry from these same people.

The net result is that people will find the author's arguments intellectually dishonest and as a result throw out the other points some of which are valid.

4 Pages1 2 3  Last