U.S. marketing strategy for war in Iraq

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.