With the threat of war in Iraq looming, an examination of the US foreign policy and its plans for the future reveals that Hussein is simply a stepping-stone towards what many on the Right are truly advocating: World domination by the United States.

On September 26th of this year, a Canadian naturalized citizen from Syria, Maher Arar made a stop at JFK International Airport in New York City as a connecting flight from Tunisia on his way to Montreal. His wife and two children still waiting for him in Tunsinia for what they thought would be a quick trip, the United States INS arrested Arar at the airport. Taking him into a backroom of the airport, Arar was questioned for nine hours (without a lawyer), then promptly jailed for two weeks and then eventually deported back to Syria for reasons the INS refuses to discuss. What makes this case interesting however, is that even though Arar was a Canadian citizen, the US government never once informed Canada about their arrest/questioning of Arar and simply sent him back to Syria, where his whereabouts currently are unknown.

Though there are undoubtedly other examples, this particular case stands as a shining example of the government's mentality in not only doing whatever it takes to wage the War on Terror, but the Bush Administration's apparent complete disregard for allies and friendly nations that they perceive to stand in the way of accomplishing their own goals; goals which the government feels they don't have to explain to the American public, nor to allies. Though the case with Arar is certainly troublesome, a further examination of the Bush Administration's meagerly offered details in terms of the scope of where they want the country to go is even more worrying, and undoubtedly will be something that the country will have to deal with in the future as a result of it's consequences.

Under the auspicious heading of "Pax Americana", a report commissioned last year Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and other key figures offers a chilling view of what the Bush White House calls "Rebuilding America's Defenses". In the publicly available report [link] , here is just a small sampling of what the report calls for: peace-keeping missions by the US around the world, without the involvement of the United Nations; emphasis on discouraging industrialized nations from challenging the US leadership in the world and trying to become world leaders; fear of Europe and the European Union becoming a threat to the US; advocating permanent bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia (even after Iraq has been dismantled) as well as focus on Iran if they become a "threat"; a strong call for "regime change" in China and a re-emergence of the US in Southeast Asia; the development once again, despite bans currently in place in the US, of biological weapons as a means of defense; North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as threats to a "world-wide command and control system" and finally the creation of the "US Space Forces" and a cyberspace army to police from outside of the planet and on the Internet.

This is undoubtedly a lot to absorb, but when one steps away from these ideas, and then views the current curmudgeon-ness of Bush and company in wanting to act without permission (towards not only Congress but the UN) in with these ideas for a Pax Americana, a lot of troubling thoughts begin to emerge. With the Cold War now almost a decade old in it's end, and America as undoubtedly the most powerful country and essentially empire in the world, one would think that in a time of uncertainty following terrorist attacks, Bush would be wanting to maintain as many connections to allies as possible to help eliminate the terrorist threat. However, this is simply not the case. Since World War II, the US has relied heavily on support from Europe as not only an economic rock but as a sort of judgment board in terms of our actions against hostile nations and trade partners. But with the emergence of the European Union in the last few years, Bush saw fit to cry crocodile tears for 9/11 only to use this sympathy to run the gamut of what was once almost an inconceivable idea for world domination. It's no secret that the Right has long distrusted the United Nations and the fact that the US has to answer to them. But what many on the Right have failed to realize until now is that without it's strongest member (the US), the UN is a quite weak body unable to enforce it's policies. With the terrorist threat still looming in this country, the arch-conservative backers of Bush and his administration seem to be using this time to shrug off any and all involvement in the UN or from Europe to do what it wants. Bush's current plan to get UN approval before attacking Iraq, at least in the US media, seems to be a mere formality before he simply does what he wants. Bush is preying off this Achilles heel with the UN to essentially force the Iraq issue through and it seems certain that, weapons inspectors or not, we will be attacking Iraq most likely before Christmas.

If Bush were to weaken the power of the UN by not involving the US in it (this has already begun, as we are refusing to sign numerous treaties regarding health and economic aid for third world countries) as a military force, it seems likely that this Pax Americana plan may actually come to fruitation. Say what you want about Bill Clinton - he was paralyzed by his inability to act without consulting polls first, his morals were undoubtedly questionable, his quest to be liked by everyone often clouding his judgment etc - but simply put, Clinton knew that to make America a strong nation, we simply had to have the support of allies, and that diplomatic negotiations went a lot farther than simply bombing the hell out of someone. The same can be said, to an extent, about George Bush Sr.: even though he did lead the first offensive against Hussein, Bush did so through the proper channels and managed to keep most of the countries allies even as the bombs fell in Baghdad. Dubya however, seems to be completely arrogant and unflinching to simply do what he wants, going so far as to use a logic fallacy [link] to define our foreign policy with "You're either with us or against us".

The dangers seem clear: without allies, certainly the US has the military strength to attack smaller countries that it wants to without regard. Politically however, if the rest of the world loses sympathy further for the US and actually perhaps unites together AGAINST America, one has to wonder just how many wars we can fight and on how many fronts before our grip as a peaceful and democratic nation slips from our hands into one of totalitarianism and as a world aggressor. Iraq right now is just a stepping stone; it is certainly an encouraging sight to see people questioning even this inevitable skirmish, but it is highly unlikely that Bush will stop with Iraq. Though the Pax Americana plan may be one that is perhaps too optimistic in accomplishing Right goals, elements and themes from the plan seem likely to slip into policy in the next few months.

In short, by severing the ties that we spent over 50 years forging against communism, America is headed down a very dangerous road, although not one that history has never seen before. The greatest empire in history, Rome, eventually crumbled because it tried to spread itself out too thin militarily and simply couldn't fight all it's battles at once. The US rose to power much quicker than Rome did, but our hyper scale of ascent seems just as likely to reach a crashing conclusion in a far quicker time than the 1,000 years it took for Rome to fall.

So when the first bombs begin to fall in Iraq; when civilians are sent scattering and Hussein's remaining loyal military begins to fire on our soldiers, keep in mind this one crucial question: Once the bombs start in Iraq, where and when will they finally end?