From the beginning the George W. Bush administration intended to assert US power as hegemonic and unilateralist, turning its back on the globalist policies of Bill Clinton. But the administration has been politically split between neoconservatives and geopolitical realists. The resulting policy battles have pulled the White House in different directions over how best to accomplish its goals. Although the policy positions of the major players converge and depart on different questions of strategy, together they represent the most nationalist wing of the military/industrial complex.

The saga of the Bush family is closely related to the national security state and oil wealth. In the Washington Post Jonathan Yardley wrote, “It is an extraordinary record. If there are other families who more fully epitomized and risen alongside the hundred-year emergence of the US military-industrial complex …no one has identified them.” (1) Although coming from this background George W. Bush had almost no foreign policy experience. In fact, during the presidential campaign when asked to name the prime ministers of several countries, including Pakistan and India, he was unable to do so. What determines Bush’s world vision is his Christian fundamentalism and a belief in good and evil. This was perhaps the perfect president for the ideologically driven neoconservatives. Bush was a blank page on which to write a foreign policy that divides the world into two simple camps, the US and everybody else. As the president stated, “Your either with us or against us.” For Bush the US represents Western civilization and everything good and the terrorists are “evil-doers.” It’s a simplistic view that serves the strategy of US hegemony. After all, globalism and multilateralism are complex and messy and don’t fit nicely into a black and white world. With family ties to the realist tradition of the national security state and his own conversion to religious fundamentalism Bush is influenced by both political camps in the White House.

Geopolitical realism has long been a major trend in US foreign policy circles. Its viewpoint sees the international system based on competitive nation states where no long-term friends exist, only economic, political and security interests. From this nation centric worldview the merging of a borderless global economy threatens the loss of national control and state based power. But military strength can forcible reestablish US security and economic leadership. This hard edge nationalism is represented by Vice-President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This drive for preeminence by the realists connects strongly to the neoconservative thesis that with the fall of the Soviet Union the US has the opportunity to become the sole hegemonic power in the world. This drive by necessity is unilateralist with the US determining the direction and goals of all major world policies. The United Nations, multilateral entanglements and globalist’s consensus are obstacles to building a pax Americana.

Former UN representative Jeannie Kirkpatrick expressed a common concern shared by neoconservatives and hard power realists when she argued that, “Foreign governments and their leaders, and more than a few activists here at home, seek to constrain and control American power by means of elaborate multilateral processes, global arrangements and UN treaties that limit both our capacity to govern ourselves and act abroad.” (2)

There is also a somewhat softer version of the realist foreign policy approach and this is where Secretary of State Colin Powell finds his niche. Powell actually represents the majority viewpoint among realists in Republican foreign policy circles. Although it may seem at times he is isolated in the Bush White House this broader base of support provides Powell with significant clout. Here we can see the influence of George Bush Senior, his National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft, and former secretaries of state James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and others. These realists see a world of competitive states but believe that the US can best achieve its aims through leadership of a multilateral international system. This is the preferable, although not essential, method of global leadership. In this strategy the soft power of US culture, political democratic history and economic might can be used to influence and lead, relegating military power to one choice among others. Most globalists can live with this approach because it opens the door to their concerns and transnational viewpoint.

Powell’s push for a US led multilateral effort against Iraq follows from his experience in the first Gulf War under George Bush. Desert Storm was backed by a very impressive international coalition working with UN sanctions. Powell’s attempt to win UN support for a new invasion was backed by just about every major Republican foreign policy figure. There was an extraordinary period in September 2002 when Scrowcroft, Baker, Eagleburger and Henry Kissinger hit every major media outlet insisting the White House appeal to the UN for support. This was a very consciously organized effort against Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives who were openly calling the UN an irrelevant and bankrupt organization. Failing to convince, bribe and threaten other countries into support Powell accepted the “coalition of the willing” as the only way forward to achieve their aims in the Middle East.

Powell and Rumsfeld have clashed in another important arena, over the nature and composition of the US military. Rumsfeld is a strong advocate for the “revolution in military affairs.” This is a widely debated structural change in the organization and technological base of the military. Rumsfeld wants a smaller more flexible and integrated military using information technology to transform every service branch. Such a force could react more quickly to security threats throughout the world, rely less on messy alliances and leave a smaller footprint inside invaded countries. Having a smaller but more effective force would also lower the casualty rates and lower political costs at home. This also means expanding missile programs, space based weapon systems and computer directed weapons such as drones. For Rumsfeld and the neoconservatives this is the surest path to achieve military hegemony. The strategy uses America’s technological lead to stay far ahead of any competitor and increases the rapid reaction time and reach of military forces. US hegemonists foresee military involvement in an array of countries stretching from the horn of Africa through the Middle East, beyond Southeast Asia and out into the Pacific. This stretch is not achievable with a military bogged down by heavy weapon systems and an impossibly large force of soldiers. The economic and political costs are just too great. Therefore the revolution in military affairs becomes an essential ingredient for their strategy. This military doctrine was first tried in Afghanistan where it was a spectacular success. More >>