How the War in Iraq and President Bush Could Have Been Machiavellian

President George W. Bush has been described as Machiavellian across several mediums - Associated Content included. But to even raise the question of the accuracy of this statement would belie the genius that is Niccolo Machiavelli's masterpiece The Prince, the assignment of the term is just plain wrong. The term, however, has taken on a life of its own, meant to essentially encompass any government that the accuser wants to classify as malevolent, even if Machiavelli himself was not a malevolent man, nor were the tactics/strategies he espoused.

The ideas he proposed, though sometimes taken harshly, are defended by the only authority that truly matters in those types of discussions: history. He says things that may sound coarse on the modern ear, or may cause our noses to furl with amazement that someone would have the audacity to make such a claim, but it's easy to condemn a man who faced the rack and saw a homeland Italy torn apart from strife safe with all the luxuries of home. But history proves very thoroughly such quotes as, "Hence it comes about that all armed prophets have been victorious, and all unarmed prophets have been destroyed."

This is contained in his book The Prince, in a chapter specifically dedicated to highlighting the successes and failures of previous prophets - highlighting that only through maintaining arms and a stout defense was Moses able to survive his rather radical commands directed at the Pharaoh, whom the world of the time treated as a living god.

Because, however, The Prince also contains such passages as, "Since love and fear can hardly coexist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved," it becomes easy to ascribe simple brutality to the man who penned them. To try to equate blind ruthlessness with Machiavellianism cheapens the message of The Prince - especially when it is used to describe the Bush Administration of the conflict in Iraq.

Rather than simply flatly deny the Machiavellian nature of the conflict in Iraq, here are some things that would have occurred if the war were administered with the edicts of The Prince. It could be argued, as is the case with ACUF, that utilizing them may have actually ended the conflict faster. Though it is up to the individual if it would have been worth it.

First and foremost, the situation as it occurred in Iraq never would have actually happened under a Machiavellian mindset - when Iraq was soundly defeated in the Persian Gulf War, Highway of Death style incidents would not have been enough to force America into Saddam favorable terms. Machiavelli made it a point that belligerent warlords such as Saddam Hussein had to be crushed wholly, specifically that, "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared."

The idea that on the heel of total victory, America should seek beneficial terms to the nation that initiated the conflict is almost as absurd as inflicting just enough damage to generate anti-American sentiment, without denying them the ability to further act on those hatreds. In this case, Machiavelli's edicts would not have advocated a course of action whereby based solely on the good intentions and future hopeful compliance of the warlord could peace be upheld, as was the case here.

But once the invasion actually came to pass, what types of things would have occurred?

America spent three years seeking the love of the Iraqi people - based largely on the common misconception that with their cultural upbringing, the Iraqis would respond to liberation much the same way the Western world would. Instead there were two reactions: resentment for what appeared to be infidels on Muslim holy lands, and an absent of respect for a force perceived to be occupiers who were unable or unwilling to back up any of their claims through solid force. In the opening days of the insurgency, there was an absence of direct initiative to crush the opposition - in the zeal to appear the peaceable liberators, America failed to capitalize on inciting fear in opposing the rise of the new Iraqi National Assembly.

As Machiavelli would say, "Since it is difficult to join them together, it is safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking." Of course, he goes on to explain, "Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil.".

American forces would've made much more headway, according to The Prince, if they had focused on making joining the insurgency unappealing - rather than pursue as they arose.

Most assuredly as soon as evidence arose that Iran was involved in killing American soldiers, the situation would have been dealt with with force. As he says, "There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."

There are a slew of other "Machiavellian Mistakes" that have been carried out likewise - ranging from failing to annihilate enemies wholly to cow-telling to Iran. However, I sincerely doubt the misapplied application of calling the war "Machiavellian" will cease any time in the near future.

Sources:

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/niccolo_machiavelli/
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-gutt1.htm
http://www.acuf.org/issues/issue89/commentsiraq.asp