U.S. marketing strategy for war in Iraq

Iqbal Widastomo, Research Associate, London School of Economics

These are dangerous times. The fear of becoming the next victim of a terrorist attack is forcing people to change their plans and this is devastating for parts of the world. The appalling death and destruction caused on Oct. 12 in Kuta, Bali has devastated tourism, the island's single most important industry.

There is an atmosphere of fear that the political leadership of America seems happy to encourage and even make worse with its warnings against certain "rogue states". The moves towards war with Iraq have been predicated on notions that Iraq poses a threat to America and/ or American interests. However, it is probably the latter of the two that is more realistic and to the point in terms of America's, and in particular America's presidential, desire to confront Saddam Hussein.

The notion that Iraq poses a direct threat to America is at best a contentious one and at worst a flat lie designed to do nothing more or less than strike fear into the hearts of Americans and so allow them to justify American force, and its massive military hardware, to be used to effectively crush an undesirable dictator and go on to occupy a foreign land.

Iraq's military machine has been so significantly damaged as a consequence of the Gulf War and the continued "no fly zone" enforced by the Allies that defeated Iraq in the Gulf War that it is barely a threat to its Middle Eastern neighbors and so is far from being a threat to America -- which is after all the mightiest of military mights in the world today.

Iraq has been left so weakened and so vulnerable that the only danger it can really offer now will come in the form of violent acts of desperation. That is to say, if Iraq comes under attack then and only then will it lash out at its neighbors in desperate attempts to defend itself. Also, by waging war on Iraq it is almost inevitable that acts of desperation are likely to follow.

Terrorism is effectively the recourse of a desperate people. Back in the 1960s and 1970s the Palestinians seemed to have only one recourse left open to them and that was terrorism. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat they struggled to find a voice and listening ears for their plight and so they entered into a war of terror to get their message across. As a consequence hijackings and kidnappings became familiar news items and perhaps the height of their terror was personified in the murders of athletes at the Munich Olympics.

A powerful state is able to equip and maintain an army but a weak and desperate state can do nothing more than call upon it most vehement and even fanatical supporters to give their lives in its defense. This kind of condition could well emerge from any potential attack on Iraq. To-date the "problem" of Iraq has largely been contained but an attack upon Iraq could be a way of "opening up a whole can of worms" that will be more devastating and damaging to the world than it has ever been before.

Some Americans have rather weakly attempted to suggest that there are links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but no concrete evidence has been provided to support such a suggestion. Indeed, some Middle East analysts have found the notion of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden joining forces bordering on the ridiculous. The two, it is suggested, are more likely to be at war with each other than joining forces against American or Western encroachment.

But it is convenient for Americans to think in simplistic terms of a common and singular enemy. The world, however, does not always conform to such simplistic notions. Indeed, in the aftermath of the Bali bombing it became convenient for Americans to immediately point to the direction of al-Qaeda. It was even possible to hear American politicians openly stating that they hoped it was none other than al-Qaeda because if it was some other group it meant that "America has another enemy to target." Or perhaps more to the point America has another enemy that wishes to target the West.

America's political leadership has, in essence, helped to conjure up the image of an enemy and in turn drum up support for war. There can be no question that America has enemies but the threat from those enemies is being played up by America's leadership to justify war. The underlying motives that are leading America to war are oil and indeed arms proliferation.

Oil is unquestionably a key factor to the Bush presidency. Oil dollars effectively paid for his campaign to become president and did little short of buy him the presidency.

Also, America's arms industry is a major world influencing factor. Whilst American leaders may claim that they are trying to protect the world from weapons of mass destruction, American industry continues to supply numerous of the world's armies with weapons and explosives.

It is these weapons and these explosives that may find their way into the hands of the terrorists. For example, it is reported that some of the ingredients that went into the Bali bomb were of American origin.

Essentially, American political leaders are entering into a marketing exercise to support their war. They have marketed the idea of a war to their consumer society and unfortunately the naivete of Americans has allowed them to be easily lead. The Americans, for the most part, have accepted what their political leaders have put before them. Sadly any political opposition, such as that which has been heard from the former vice president Al Gore and the former president Jimmy Carter, has mostly been ridiculed.

Americans seem rather caught up in a flag waving patriotism that is leading them to war. Any dissenting voices are pushed aside. This seems particularly sad and dangerous when one considers that America claims to be the world's most democratic society. The dangers to the world of America marketing war are great and deeply unwanted.