A Nobel Peace Prize for George W. Bush?

Howard Zinn, the author of A People's History of the United States, demolishes the arguments in favour of a United States attack on Iraq and then suggests that "We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil." It is fascinating to follow this speculation through.

President Bush is not going to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. He is said to be too busy enjoying his summer holiday at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

That reason might appeal to such lazybones as you and I; but, for the leader of the free, democratic world, who is also our commander-in-chief for the war against terrorism, it seems curious.
So it is fair to reflect on one alternative tale - to wit, the Zinn scenario.

We know the Bush attachment to oil and other fossil fuels. He supports exploitation of Arctic oil, mountain-top mining of coal at high environmental cost, and the rest. He was an oilman himself. He was friendly with Enron, before its collapse, and other energy corporations. His Vice-President, Dick Cheney, boasts similar links and, in his hawkish speech of 26 August, worried about Saddam seeking to dominate the Middle East and its oil supplies through nuclear blackmail.

So, while we can understand the Bush reluctance to attend the World Summit with its emphasis on environmental issues, we should not imagine he is just "sleeping in the sun...[and] never getting a day's work done." On the contrary, he is clearly thinking about a range of issues, including Iraq.

Some months ago, an attack seemed imminent. Later, the signals were that it was not immediately on the agenda. Perhaps next year or, anyway, after the mid-term elections.

Bush recently called himself "a patient man."

Is that true - is any assault on Iraq postponed indefinitely, perhaps to the Greek kalends?

Or, as Cheney's speech of 26 August could now foreshadow, is "patience" no more than a cover for an imminent assault?

Is the reason for Bush's absence from Johannesburg the need to put some finishing touches to plans for an immediate, pre-emptive attack?

Such an attack would seek to limit American casualties and probably concentrate on Baghdad and key strategic points. Aircraft and missiles would keep the burden on ground forces to a minimum.

Iraqi casualties, including civilians, would probably be heavy.

Deployment of forces for such an assault, involving around 50,000 rather than 250,000 troops, has already been going ahead.

Shipping in the Gulf is being "patrolled."

We cannot assume that American power will inevitably prevail and do so quickly. Risks are real; but Saddam has been overestimated in the past and a quick, overwhelming and, for Iraq, humiliating American victory is not unlikely.

Most people assume that this would provoke an upsurge in hatred for the Americans and more rather than less terrorism. One tyranny in Iraq would be replaced by another, not by a free and open democracy. The United States could get bogged down in Iraq for years.

The last would probably be true but the Americans might not see it as being "bogged down." Rather they might embrace the need for a gradual process towards democracy, requiring "supervision" over a period of five, perhaps ten years or more.

Meantime, United States forces would occupy one of the world's largest oil provinces.

What's more, they would be in a position to "encourage" cooperation from Kuwait and, yes, from the biggest oil producer of all, Saudi Arabia, a tottering feudal-like tyranny and coincidentally one of the most prolific producers of effective, totalitarian terrorists in recent years.

Mideast oil would thus be effectively in the hands or under the control of the United States. Any threat to United States oil supplies would be over.

OPEC would be finished or become a paper tiger. United States oil corporations could have "their interests protected" - even promoted.

There would be other bonuses. Iran which humiliated the United States after the 1979 revolution and has been troublesome ever since, would be nicely encircled by United States power to the east in Afghanistan and to the west in Iraq. The United States Navy and Air Force would rule the Persian Gulf and its approaches.

To the north, the United States position with the former territories of the Soviet Union might be less secure but ways might be found to effect pragmatic improvements even there. In Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, as the Foreign Minister of the latter recently pointed out, "The world has changed."

Already, since September the Eleventh, four of the five governments in the region, formerly part of the Soviet Union, have offered military facilities to and become military partners of the United States.

So, at one stroke, two spokes of the "Axis of Evil" - Iraq and Iran - would be knocked out. Only North Korea would remain and that regime seems to be quietly coming to what most people would regard as its senses.

What about the reaction of other Mideast states, the explosion of terrorism and violence, counter-attacks on United States power?
Would Mubarek's Egypt, shaky from within and already heavily dependent on United States aid, rebel against its benefactor? The still relatively new leaders in Syria and Jordan might hesitate to annoy the mighty power now firmly installed as their neighbour. Lebanon might be happy simply to survive.

What about Qaddafi?

Much of the fire of the old fire-eater has now been quenched. He is already coming in from what has become the cold. Faced with yet another awesome manifestation of American power, he is unlikely to revert to his old ways.

Who is left? India and Pakistan are preoccupied with their own squabble, with America the well-meaning friend of both. Indonesia desperately needs to hold itself together.

What about the former superpower, Russia and the future superpower, China?

They will grizzle but they're unlikely to pick a full-frontal fight with the only superpower around at the moment.

And the United States has friends to help put the right gloss on what it is doing.

Britain can be relied on to strengthen its "special relationship."

Australia, widely regarded as democratically decent, will keep trying to bow and scrape its way into United States good graces.

Some Europeans won't like it. Germany has already expressed opposition to a United States attack on Iraq.

France and others will be at best hesitant. But they are unlikely to do more than disagree orally or in writing. Indeed, France is already busy wriggling free of any too clearly expressed antipathy to American "dynamism, energy and exceptional enthusiasm" and is looking towards a "new Euro-Atlantic partnership."

NATO will robustly survive. Trans-Atlantic trade will be a sturdy link - and will continue perhaps to provide the only Euro-American battleground. The guarantee of oil supplies at manageable and predictable prices will be a comfort. The spread of stability, peace and democracy to a region formerly denied these blessings, as well as the blessings of a "free market," will be applauded.

Even the conflict between Israel and Palestine might be resolved at last.

Already persona non grata with the United States, Yasser Arafat will be replaced with a putative "democrat" who will clean out the terrorists and negotiate a lasting peace with Israel. Palestine will achieve formal statehood. A cluster of Nobel Peace Prizes will be handed around - perhaps even one for President George W. Bush - and quiet will at last descend on this troubled area.

All of this is speculation of course. Nothing of the kind is really likely to happen.

Or is it?

Whatever the answer, such thoughts must have exercised the minds of some at least of those enjoying their "summer holiday" frolics at Crawford, Texas.Cheney predicted that, after a successful campaign against Saddam, "Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad.

Moderates...would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced."

Just how much impact those thoughts are having and will have on United States policy, we shall know only as events unfold in the months ahead.

Right now, the impact appears to be mighty.