• 'Vital Strategic Interests' versus 'Effectively Fighting Terrorism'

    Email Print
    Share

    From
    Thirteen Colonies to Five Continents in 200 Years

    The
    leaders of the United States, like the leaders of every arrogant,
    powerful state before it, have sought to subordinate or conquer
    weaker states. The rulers of dominant states have since time immemorial
    regarded such cold-blooded statecraft as the due of “great men.”
    And they say the human race evolves (which it does, of course, but
    at a snail's pace).

    When
    has not the prospect of empire swept along the public with breathless
    promises of “glory” or “duty” or the ever resonant, if fake, imperative
    to “defend the homeland?” And so does the inevitable downward slide
    commence. The economy becomes more militarized and less dynamic;
    government debt burgeons; the political leadership descends into
    prevarication and authoritarianism; the public is diverted by the
    imperial overhang of wealth and spectacle; spiritual life descends
    variously into rigid fanaticism or the silliest sort of imaginable
    bottom-feeding. In the end, the rot spreads far enough that a new
    adversary supplants or destroys the hollowed out shell of a once
    great land. Some of this is happening now, the rest of it will inevitably,
    one day.

    In
    the meantime, let’s say for argument’s sake that the United States
    is presently at its apex. Given this widely held assumption, there
    is good reason to believe that the American government and its people
    are historically unique in their collective blindness to the threats
    inherent in empire.

    You
    can just hear the dupes. Why, we’re the world’s oldest democracy
    with the world’s largest economy and best military, and besides,
    people far and wide love our cultural production and we're nice
    and they're mean. A mere three generations have witnessed the transformation
    of this land from a swashbuckling North American kid to a global
    hegemon – too much, too quickly; so too then will be the fall.

    For,
    during the last American century (1898–2001), our country,
    quite unlike the European imperial powers, has risen unencumbered
    by a nearby adversary capable of threatening our territorial integrity,
    to say nothing of the daily life of its citizenry. Military victories
    over Native Americans, Mexico, Spain, the Central Powers, world
    fascism and Communism were racked up. On the evening of September
    10th, 2001, America still bestrode the world like a colossus. It
    only thinks it still does, but "the whole world is watching"…and
    gagging.

    Only
    two attacks were ever sustained at home: the British burning of
    the White House in 1814 and the attack on the Pacific Fleet in a
    remote colony in 1941. The first is now long-forgotten and the second
    was more than compensated for by vicious annihilation of Imperial
    Japan in 1945. Aside from the firebombing of Japanese cities, the
    nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was the "grand finale,"
    the first and last 1,000 bomber run over a city on this planet,
    just before the armistice was signed. There's your "western
    civilization," if you need it.

    The
    Cold War initiated the first imaginable threat to the American mainland.
    However, American military supremacy in nuclear weapons – and the
    reality of Mutually Assured Destruction – made for a specter that
    gradually dissipated once the opening to China and the establishment
    of détente with the Soviet Union was cemented.

    Americans
    do not particularly remember how close nuclear holocaust came during
    the Cuban missile crisis, nor do they much recall Reaganite talk
    of fighting a “winnable nuclear war.” The Cold War ended and then
    all of a sudden, some religious lunatics attacked us for all our
    noble efforts lo these many years.

    This
    transformation of a colony on the Atlantic, to the military arbiter
    of the Western Hemisphere in its first century, to a militarily
    unassailable superpower in its second, has not inspired circumspection
    among our elites. Nor is the public likely to ruminate long and
    hard in a land that invented the kind of PR “can do” boosterism
    reflected in Horatio Alger stories and notions of an “American dream.”

    Add
    to the mix an ideology of global supremacy that has gone almost
    entirely unquestioned in mainstream political debate since World
    War II (the brief interregnum in the late 1960s and early 1970s
    being the only slight exception), and one finds a culture essentially
    bereft of the kind of political introspection necessary for the
    kind of large scale corrective action so necessary today.

    Never
    before was so powerful a country, so long thought unassailable by
    its elites and public, struck such a dramatic and deadly a blow
    as was the case on 9/11. Never before was so callow a President
    of the United States so beholden to militaristic advisors – Neocon
    and evangelical Protestant divisions – respectively inured of Likud-messianic
    Zionism and hostility ontological toward the Muslim world. Never
    before in its history was the United States so poised to reshape
    the world militarily, along with the ideological and emotional fervor
    to carry it out.

    The
    above cultural characteristics comprise the power relationships
    and ideological context in which the attack on Iraq was carried
    out. When this aggression showed its Janus face, another almost
    unprecedented thing happened to this American foreign policy initiative.

    Spectres
    from the past rose. In echoing the reaction to Vietnam, the world
    public – to an even greater degree and even before the fighting started – rapidly
    agitated against it. So, today we are essentially fighting alone
    a foe increasingly able to mobilize largely invisible battalions
    from long-resentful ranks that make up nearly a quarter of the world’s
    populace.

    With
    civil war brewing in Iraq, as a consequence of the most fateful
    American military intervention since World War II, the question
    among American elites is not whether to further expand the reach
    of American power in the Middle East; it is largely a matter of
    where and how. Once again, bipartisanship has triumphed.

    The
    Millennium-long Fight for Independence in the Muslim Middle East

    In
    contrast to the isolated and pacific existence of the United States
    at home, and the relatively low cost (to us, not our victims) of
    its historical military interventions abroad, the Muslim Middle
    East has experienced an almost constant succession of invading and
    occupying forces. The most prominent events would include: the Crusades
    (1095–1291); the catastrophic incursion of Tamerlane (1393–1402);
    the domination by the Ottoman Turks (1600–1918); the British
    and French mandates (1920–1948); the decisive influence by
    the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain (1948–1973);
    and finally the onset of Soviet decline, Israeli dominance in the
    Levant and the entrenchment of American power via a basing archipelago
    throughout the region (1973–present).

    To
    say that the above incursions have never elicited a sanguine response
    from ordinary Muslims is, as Gore Vidal likes to say, “to riot in
    understatement.” “Liberation,” for folks in the region, smells like
    putrid old wine in fancy new bottles.

    It
    is striking to note that the bloody battles associated with the
    Crusades lasted for a period of time roughly comparable to the period
    of pristine American domestic life (1814–2001). The Ottoman
    period lasted in the Arab lands as long as it did due to the sometimes-enlightened
    despotism of the sultans – allowing for long periods of relative
    local religious and political autonomy.

    The
    arbitrary imposition of the nation-state on the region following
    the First World War, by culturally and religiously alien Britain
    and France, scarcely helped matters. When combined with the subsequent
    propping up of an “Arab façade” behind which American power
    grew throughout the second half of the 20th Century, one finds a
    cauldron of rage bubbling about as long as we’ve been living the
    mass consumption “good life.”

    The
    emergence of fundamentalist political Islam has roughly ebbed coincident
    with or perhaps in proportion to the interference of the United
    States in the region. Today, among the suppressed publics in Muslim
    Middle East, the question is not whether to resist the spread of
    American power; it is largely a matter of where and how.

    Religion
    & Militancy: the U.S. & the Middle East

    The
    changes with respect to religion in the United States and the countries
    of the Middle East bear some resemblance to one another even as
    they obviously have their own distinct antecedents. The rise of
    fundamentalist religion around the world – much of Europe aside
    – in the past quarter century is news to no one. Much has been
    made of militant Islam’s challenge in particular and without question
    it is the most visible and perhaps dynamic religious ideology in
    the world today.

    Fundamentalist
    Islam has risen at the expense of post-colonial independent secular
    Arab nationalism (Nasser in Egypt, Saddam, the PLO and the al-Assad
    dynasty in Syria). These regimes were unwilling to extend human
    rights, prosperity or even a little accountability to their domestic
    subjects, sometimes at the behest of the United States. Also, their
    prestige faded as various Israeli occupations, stemming from the
    1967 war, dragged on for decades. When there is scant hope for improvement
    in this world, human beings all over the world tend to look to the
    next one.

    Within
    Israel a similar tendency is barely disguised. The demographic changes
    within the Jewish state come to mind. Once a country made up overwhelmingly
    of secular Europeans voting for the Labor Party, today Israel is
    a land increasingly populated by ultra-nationalists quite at home
    with a still largely secular Likud, in league with religious fundamentalists
    like Shahs and the National Religious Party.

    This
    shift is not just demographic of course. It is also ideological
    and spurred in part by the growing militancy of Islamist factions
    opposed to the PLO’s ineffectual post-Oslo position. The willingness
    of Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah to take American hostages and fight
    Israel in Southern Lebanon respectively in the mid-1980s left its
    mark on Palestinian society.

    With
    the initial aid of a cynical Israeli state seeking to undermine
    the PLO, Hamas emerged in the late 1980s. The genie is now well
    out of the bottle, offering a potent mix of paradise in the next
    world, a widespread network of social services in this one, and
    the prospect of uncompromising and vengeful resistance in the meantime.

    Predictably,
    as Jewish settlers moved into the West Bank, not only did daily
    tensions with the Palestinians increase, so too was a new and politically
    vociferous constituency formed within Israel proper. Insofar as
    Israel and the United States decided that the status quo was sustainable
    during the 20 years of relative calm between the Six Day War (1967)
    and the start of the first Intifada (1987), both states appear in
    retrospect to have made a grave miscalculation.

    During
    this twenty-year window, secular nationalists on both sides could
    have been negotiating a legitimate settlement. Today, after another
    decade and a half of brutal colonial fighting, we see increasingly
    a situation in which religious extremists on both sides have moved
    closer and closer to having veto power over any sort of settlement.
    Looking back at choices made, one has to wonder just what end game
    was imagined by successive Israeli and American governments. In
    short: no legitimate end game was envisioned.

    The
    phenomenon of fundamentalist religion is also certainly quite pronounced
    in the United States itself. The defection of evangelical Protestants
    from the Democratic Party in the 1970s, their mobilization by Ronald
    Reagan and the unprecedented power they presently wield over George
    W. Bush, has had and will have grave consequences for both the United
    States and the Middle East.

    It
    was one thing to have secular realpolitik types running
    American foreign policy. Back in the day, Republican and Democratic
    administrations had long tilted towards the more moderate Labor
    Party. George H.W. Bush even suspended loan guarantees to Israel
    when faced with the recalcitrance of the Yitzakh Shamir’s Likud
    government in 1991.

    Today,
    by contrast, George W. Bush not only ignores provocations by the
    Sharon government but blithely calls him a “man of peace.” The Republican
    Party under George W. Bush is incapable of settling the Palestinian-Israeli
    conflict because its core constituency now regards Israeli control
    of the occupied territories as a biblical imperative, just as Israel’s
    messianic settlers do. A credible peace initiative, even along the
    cautious lines of Oslo, being launched by a Republican president,
    is now rather hard to imagine.

    With
    the invasion of Iraq, the forces of fundamentalist religion and
    violent reaction have been strengthened in the short term. George
    W. Bush saw the Senate go Republican in the run up to Iraq war,
    the Likud and its fundamentalist governing coalition have effectively
    buried Oslo and now find 135,000 American troops providing Israel
    “strategic depth” with regard to Iran, while Islamic militants have
    seen their suspicions confirmed that the “war on terror” was really
    just a ruse to take over an oil rich Arab country.

    “Vital
    Strategic Interests” versus “Effectively Fighting Terrorism”

    It
    has been noted that the number and frequency of al-Qaeda attacks
    has quickened in the 30 months since 9/11 in contrast to the 30
    months prior. This is a harbinger, and it requires a major rethinking
    by the American public as to just what our vital strategic
    interests are as opposed to those proffered by the government.

    “Vital
    strategic interests” are the political and economic goals most hankered
    for by mighty domestic constituencies. Among the strong, they are
    ultimately pragmatically agreed upon through institutions and diplomacy.
    More often than not, when the powerful discern valuable resources
    at hand, paired with distasteful leaders commanding weak militaries,
    war can be expected. To trot out an old truism: the strong will
    take what they can; the weak will suffer what they must.

    The
    new part of the equation, in this era of rapid and easy mobility
    of people and the dispersion of deadly technologies, is the threat
    of catastrophic terrorism. The usual tools of American foreign policy – smash
    the enemy or buy him off – do not apply particularly to zealots who
    neither fear death nor are “in it for the money.”

    The
    first job of any government – allegedly the major point of the thing – is
    to protect its citizens from foreign attackers. That, presumably,
    is the most vital interest of all. Policy choices which undermine
    this elemental imperative are not only less vital, they ought to
    be anathema to people with the ability to reason. Regardless, we
    find ourselves increasingly enmeshed in a tit for tat cycle in which
    our supposed greatest strength – the ability to project military power – becomes
    our Achilles heel in the end.

    Al
    Qaeda and like-minded offshoots are playing us with a classic rope
    a dope strategy. History in their neck of the woods conditions them
    to think in terms of generations, if not centuries; the fools in
    power here think only in terms of business and election cycles.
    The longer the manifold problems of the Middle East are allowed
    to fester, and the wider and deeper the American military spreads
    throughout the region, the greater the number and dispersion of
    terror’s hydra heads.

    It
    begs the question: when it comes to the Middle East, just what makes
    our leaders think that we are any different from the Crusaders,
    Turks, French or the British? Have not the historical lessons of
    just the post-colonial period – most obviously, Vietnam – been learned
    by anyone in power currently?

    The
    answer, sadly, appears to be no. After all, next to none of them
    saw battle, though they did manage to sanctimoniously cheer from
    their grad school perches. The present strategy assumes that in
    the course of occupying – but not consensually rehabilitating – two
    Muslim countries, the number of new terrorist recruits will somehow
    remain static and then subsequently magically dwindle.

    This
    was the general idea behind such activities in Vietnam as the “Phoenix
    program,” which went about murdering tens of thousands of presumed
    “Viet Cong” cadre without developing a just and legitimate government
    in South Vietnam. And we all know how well “draining the swamp of
    insurgents” turned out there.

    Undeterred,
    von Dumsfeld & Co think they can for all intents and purposes
    successfully replicate what failed in Vietnam. These kooks think
    they can engineer an object democratic and pluralistic lesson out
    of aggression – to be lapped up from Marrakech to Manila, from Tashkent
    to Karachi. Of course it won’t work since the peoples of all countries
    wish to have a say in their governments, free of foreign occupation
    and domination.

    It
    is of course lunacy to accept this spurious “democratization” proposition
    with the realist caveat that we will, on the upside, continue to
    enjoy essential control over energy resources. In the end, oil will
    be sold to the West regardless of whether the government is fundamentalist
    or a secular Arab nationalist one. Otherwise, the oil rich societies
    would collapse, likely under force of American arms. Among the "free
    market" ideologues in power today, there’s scant trust in the
    market sorting things out.

    Tragically,
    we still haven’t learned the lesson of September 11th, even two
    years later. In the aftermath of the Madrid bombing – equivalent to
    a strike half as deadly as 9/11 proportionally – the Spanish people
    learned it in two days. Imperialism under the guise of “fighting
    terrorism” is not only immoral, it is really, really dumb.

    Not
    only does next to no one outside the United States believe the fake
    “democratic” rhetoric, they recognize that a choice must be made.
    Either the countries of the Muslim Middle East will be allowed to
    move towards a form of government responsive to their publics, with
    the result being a decrease in terrorist legitimacy – with the diminution
    of American influence which meaningful independence inherently implies.

    Or,
    BushCo. will continue down the path of hypocritical military control
    of the region and the all terror that must come with it. Government
    officialdom still thinks they can have all of the control over there
    and none of the responsibility for it over here. They’ve get “secure,
    undisclosed locations,” we get the shaft.

    Well,
    the good old days of blowback-less intervention are long gone, and
    one would think that more people who run this country – the rich – would
    recognize the peril. (Smashing up Latin America for a century and
    a half with impunity has evidently left its mark.) On one hand,
    they obviously want to continue to sell their products, which still
    have enormous appeal, around the world. On the other hand, if the
    United States continues on its present course, Brand America will
    one day enjoy about as much appeal as Brand USSR did by the end.

    Of
    course, many amidst the upper crust are compromised by a long-enduring
    factor. A century and a half of working hand-in-glove with the American
    government to force open markets, along with the highly profitable
    relationship with the state socialism of the Defense Department,
    has co-opted much of the private sector.

    And
    this War on Terror sure is shaping up as a real bonanza. Just ask
    Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, Fluor and Halliburton along with hundreds
    upon hundreds of other subcontractors. Yet, one might imagine that
    these folk – without some of whom, it seems clear, there is scant
    hope for altering American foreign policy – would be given pause.
    They too are faced with the spiraling likelihood of having their
    cosmopolitan play grounds catastrophically attacked.

    None
    Dare Call It Treason

    A
    victory by George W. Bush in the 2004 election will place the United
    States in an international politics cul-de-sac, out of which it
    may not emerge without traumatic changes at home. There will be
    no settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq will
    probably descend into civil war unless the administration changes
    course dramatically.

    There
    is reason to believe that there are domestic political calculations
    at work here which favor the high risk Republican strategy of taking
    up al Qaeda on its “rope-a-dope” strategy. For in the United States,
    during periods of perceived external threat, the American people
    have generally sided with the “tough guy” Republicans. And so they
    did in 2004.

    In
    the big picture, domestic politics don't amount to much when it
    comes to foreign policy, if one really looks closely. We will not
    “win” the Bush administration’s advertised “victory” in Iraq because
    it means that country’s defeat as a sovereign nation. Jay Garner,
    Grand Vizier Bremer’s predecessor, was forced out of his post for
    opposing the privatization of Iraq’s economy by western firms. Mr.
    Bremer, formerly a heavy at Kissinger Associates, saw things differently.

    Garner
    unintentionally pointed out another reason why Bush’s phony “vision”
    will fail. He conceded that Iraq will serve the role played by the
    Philippines in an earlier era. Iraq will be a modern day “coaling
    station” for American power in the region – a source of resources
    flanked by strategic, permanent bases.

    A
    genuinely legitimate elected government in Iraq – not one made up
    of émigré toadies – will demand that Americans cease
    stationing troops in their country. This is an inevitable conflict,
    for the Bush administration has every intention of making Iraq its
    primary military patsy in the region. This clash may be delayed,
    for years on end perhaps by counter-insurgency warfare, but it will
    result in a disaster for our country.

    As
    a leading geostrategic ghoul recently put it, unlike Vietnam, “Iraq
    matters.” Iraq “matters” in part because a growing consensus of
    petroleum geologists and analysts contends that within the next
    two decades, the planet will have used up half of all the extant
    petroleum reserves. Middle Eastern oil will become a larger and
    larger share of world consumption; competition for it will be fierce
    and, if little changes, very likely increasingly deadly.

    Mr.
    Bush is famously the first American president to hold an MBA, and
    if his profligate down payment of $300 billion on the “liberation”
    of Iraq is any indication, he expects dick Cheney’s friends to profit
    handsomely. The corresponding unwillingness of the Bush administration
    to chart a course of energy independence – as reflected in the clandestine
    Cheney energy task force report – alone makes the likelihood of an
    extended and deep military involvement in the region very nearly
    a fait accompli.

    In
    the meantime, the treasury has been bled by $1.6 trillion to further
    subsidize the Ken Lays and Dennis Kozlowskis of the country via
    tax cuts; and this during "war time" to boot. Just imagine
    if this country had drawn the right conclusions from 9/11 and spent
    some of that stupid $1.6 trillion tax cut to develop alternative
    energy resources?

    We
    should have simply squished the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan
    first, and then set in motion a long-term effort to wean ourselves
    of Persian Gulf crude. With such an investment, a decade or two
    down the road the crunch would have been a lot softer than it will
    be. Instead, we are poised to be fighting in the Middle East trying
    to control the last drops out of the petroleum spigot. And they
    called the early participants in the Iraqi insurgency “dead enders.”

    Even
    with all this, we still have time. We still have it within our reach,
    as the most powerful country on the planet, to take a step back
    and recognize limitations to our power – this time will come regardless;
    why not get on with it?

    Look
    at history.

    Did
    the French “give in” to terrorism when they recognized that they
    couldn’t indefinitely dominate Algeria? Did the British “give in”
    to terrorism when they decided to address the complaints of Sinn
    Fein and the IRA?

    Will
    we “give in” to terrorism when we start treating the Arab / Muslim
    world as we treat the Europeans? No, and we might just save ourselves – and
    the Muslim world – a great deal of sorrow, pain and death in the process.

    We
    still have the capacity to inaugurate a détente
    with the Arab / Muslim world on consensual terms – unless, that is,
    the prospect of ever more catastrophic domestic terrorism and resultant
    despotism is more alluring. We do after all have a president who
    “joked” that “if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of
    a lot easier – just so long I’m the dictator.”

    Another
    great wit, Caligula, is reputed to have said “let them hate, so
    long as they fear.” The Bush clique apparently has no fear, but
    then neither does the suicide bomber. Fear is left to the ordinary
    people of the planet.

    March
    1, 2005

    Stephen
    Bender [send him mail] is a writer based in San Francisco. You can
    find more of his work at his
    website
    .

    Email Print
    Share