Abstract
It would be difficult to believe what's happened on the global scene over the last 16 years–my tenure as a member of the Bulletin staff–if we hadn't actually lived through it. Let's recap: From 1989 to 1991, as decades-old assumptions fell along with the Berlin Wall and then the Soviet Union, it looked as if things could not be going better–except, of course, for the carping of old Sovietologists, who began to feel the cold wind of unemployment. At the Bulletin we joked that they needed a retraining program. Or that at least the wonkiest of Cold Warriors (many of whose writings appeared at length in the magazine) should be carried off to “shorter writing” if not total reeducation centers.
But they, not we, prevailed. In 1991, Colin Powell not-so-subtly pointed out that it was not wrong to prepare to fight a single powerful enemy like the Soviets, but that at the moment the only available enemies were the likes of Kim Il Sung and other two-bit punks. Some said not to worry–there would be a Soviet comeback–but other, wiser heads knew the answer to the “lack of enemies” problem was to work with what they had–to build up the punks.
The Clinton years were spent fleshing out this theme, with white papers generated by the Pentagon and right-wing think tanks, with “special” reports commissioned by the congressional members of a single party, usually to the effect that the “threat” was greater than ever before. The drumbeat began: 35 countries were about to point missiles at the United States; North Korea had a massive, A-1 army readying to attack; because the United States was the most powerful country on earth it was uniquely vulnerable … huh?
All this might have served only to protect Pentagon budgets and to ease career ideologues into comfortable retirements. Then came 9/11.
It is possible to consider the Bush administration's response as normal, given the surprise and ferocity of the attack. But even at the time there were questions about declaring war against a concept. The “war on terror,” after all, is not against a specific territory, nor does it name many names; indeed, it has already proved fruitful not to name names. We are told the war will take generations to fight, and there appears to be no basis for knowing when we will experience victory or suffer defeat. As in Iraq, the “enemy” may be expanded or contracted to suit political expediency.
The only lack was a cover story for endless war as grandiose as the plan for war itself. The administration's new idea–that it can use the gun to bring freedom to every part of the globe–fits the bill.
So in a few years we have forgotten to be grateful for the unexpectedly peaceful end of the Cold War, adopting instead a philosophy of endless war beyond anything Orwell imagined. This is what history will remember us for.
This is my last issue as editor of the Bulletin. I wish all the best to my successor, Mark Strauss, who comes to the magazine from Foreign Policy. I know he will do a fine job.
I am grateful for all the opportunities the Bulletin has provided me, and I am especially grateful to Bulletin readers for their many kindnesses.
Linda Rothstein