As THE SHOCK OF Americanncluster bombs and the distinctive rumblenof Abrams tanks fade from thenArabian nights, we world-citizens mustnbegin to sort through the events of thenlast eight months. Many lessons couldnbe drawn. Allow me to suggest two.nFirst, it seemed clear by the sixthnweek of open combat that Americannconservatives had succeeded in onentask beyond their wildest dreams: innmatters of foreign policy and war, thenAmerican press had been cowed. Recurringncomplaints notwithstanding,ntwenty years of relentless attacks onnliberal bias in the media, by figuresnranging from Spiro Agnew to ReednIrvine, have had their effect. With thenexception of several writers for thenNew York Times and the consistentnvoice of Dan Rather, reporters in thenGulf have commonly behaved as dutifulnpatriots. In contrast to the Vietnamnyears, where correspondents questionednevery official announcement,nthe Allied Command’s principal problemnwas to restrain press enthusiasmnfor the campaign. Tight military censorshipnprovoked surprisingly little concretenprotest. Back home, regionalnnewspapers and local broadcast outletsnhelped to marshal the war euphoria.nNot since the mid-1940’s had then”adversary press” been so pliant a toolnof the foreign policy establishment, innservice to the executive branch of government.nSecond, George Bush deserves ournawe for pulling off a constitutionalncoup, almost without remark. In thenheated debate of November-January,nsome constitutional scholars insistednthat Mr. Bush needed a congressionalndeclaration of war before he couldncommit troops to battle in the FertilenCrescent. Other scholars, along withnadministration figures, argued that hisnpowers as Commander in Chief gavenhim all the authority he needed, notingnthat of the 250 distinct American militarynactions of the past, only five hadninvolved a declaration. All students ofnthe Constitution, though, agreed thatnCongress exercised an important checkn6/CHRONICLESnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnon presidential war-making through itsnpower of the purse: Chief Executivesnmust still come to the Hill in order tonpay for their wars.nCongress avoided an open display ofnits impotence by narrowly authorizingnthe Gulf campaign. Forgotten in thenhistrionics of the congressional debate,nthough, was Mr. Bush’s true innovation:na way to pay for a foreign warnwithout resort to Congress. Call itn”contributions” or “burden sharing,”nthe payment of tens of billions bynSaudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, andnothers into the federal treasury gavenMssrs. Baker and Bush an unprecedentednfree hand.nSome critics of the war have blastednthese payments as mercenary fees. Thenpundits miss the real splendor of thendeed. A better way to view the moneynis as a tribute, in the medieval sense ofna payment by vassals to their overlordnand protector. Another way to see thendonated cash is as a clever recycling ofnthose ubiquitous petrodollars by thenwaxing branch of world government,n”the international banking community-nEither way, Mr. Bush found a waynto break free of the last enfeeblednconstitutional shackle on the President’snwar-making ability, and has enjoyedna power only dreamed of bynWilson and the Roosevelts. Like thenRoman Senate in the old Empire, ournCongress is still allowed to pretend itnhas a role, and it has obediently blessednthe nation’s first “off budget” war.nThis is, after all, simply good politics innthe kinder, gentler Empire we inhabit.n—Allan CarlsonnI HE NEW WORLD ORDERnpromised by George Bush is turningnout to be something like a unisexnbarbershop that can buzz off anwoman’s locks while giving male customersna wave and a perm. Over andnover we have heard the phrase “ournmen and women stationed in thenGulf.” As the war went on, we evennlearned that women were pilotingnnncombat helicopters (as they did, apparently,nin Panama); in fact one womannpilot was killed. We were also informednthat a woman had been taken as anprisoner of war. Eventually, reportersnbegan to speak of “men and women inncombat.” The use of women in combatnis, as we all know, forbidden by law,nbut this law is quickly assuming thenstatus of Boston’s statute against frequentnbathing — more honored in thenbreach than in the observance.nWomen in combat ought to be ansource of unease among old-fashionednAmericans who until recently believednit was a man’s duty to protect thenwomen of his family and nation. Onenprominent conservative recently toldnme that he was glad that he opposednthe war, because he could not live withnthe thought that he supported a campaignnin which women were riskingntheir lives to protect millions of ablebodiednmen back at home. No one, innor out of the Armed Forces, ought tonhave any illusions over why so manynwomen have been sent to the Gulf.nThey have been sent there to get usnused to the idea that women can die forntheir country as well as men, and if thatnis the sort of country we are fightingnfor — a country willing to sacrifice itsnsisters and daughters for the NewnWorld Order — then there is no placenin it for what used to be called angendeman or for anyone raised in thenChristian faith.n— Thomas FlemingnAFTER WE’VE attrited all the enemy,nwe’re going to have the NewnWodd Order. In the New World Ordernthere will be no more disorder, thatnmuch we know. All those people whonlitter, laze, sprawl, and don’t do a licknof work in all those countries that don’tnfunction too efficiently because everybodyntakes siestas all the time, all thosenslow-on-the-uptake countries with allntheir low-producing unwork-ethicalnpeople, will become efficient, clean,nand productive when the New WoddnOrder comes. No more piddlingn