Will a weaker US hand in the Middle East force Bush to reconsider the building of permanent bases in Iraq? Has the sun set on US influence in the Middle East, and, indeed, worldwide?In the wake of Lebanon II and perhaps a casualty of it, US influence throughout the Middle East is on the wane. Nevertheless, there are indications that the Bush administration is going ahead with plans to build permanent US bases in Iraq. How much sense does this make at a time when the US has lost its ability to set or shape a Middle East agenda?
American leverage, prestige and power has never been lower as the Bush administration is all but left out of a shaky cease-fire in southern Lebanon. Even before the Israel/Hezbollah war —called Lebanon II by some observers — America was perceived as having eschewed its role as "honest broker" —thus losing to Iran and radical Islam a position of great leverage in the Middle East. Compounding the difficulty of our predicament is the very real possibility that it was all deliberate. The Bush administration may have willingly relinquished a legitimate role in order to pursue its special oil interests in Iraq.
It was a bad and incompetent trade-off. By pursuing illegitimate and dangerous policies, Bush undermined our ability to positively influence legitimate issues. No Democratic goals are realized in Iraq where a puppet regime and an increasingly unpopular American occupation is caught up between three concurrent civil wars: the war between a guerilla resistance vs the US occupation; another involving Kurds vs other northern Iraqi communities; and a third between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ites.
Juan Cole recently quoted US Ambassador to Iraq —Zalmay Khalilzad —as having claimed that he had given assurances to sectarian opposition to the US: "We don't want to stay in Iraq." But there's never been any such assurance from either Bush or Rumsfeld. Quite the contrary. Kevin Drum, writing in Washington Monthly, stated that the Bush administration is, in fact, "allocating resources" to build permanent military bases in Iraq. I ask what is the purpose of such permanent bases if not to subjugate the people and control the production of oil?
Well, if you're going to war, obviously troops are going to a theater and to a country and in the immediate aftermath of such a conflict, there would have to be a need for some presence until such time as you can put in place a better system. I mean, the United States has done this many times in the course of the last 50 or 60 years and we always try to get out as quickly as we can once we have reestablished peace, put in place a stable system, it is never our intention to go and stay in a place and to impose our will by the presence of our military forces.—Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed on NPR's "All Things Considered," October 11, 2002.
But, oddly, Powell would later discount a New York Times report of April 20, 2003 that cited sources that had said that the U.S. would build "...four permanent bases in Iraq". Powell called the report inaccurate! Not a denial. Secondly, the story was called "unfortunate". But Bushies can call "unfortunate" anything true that is said about them —especially if what is said about them is true. "Fortunate" is a relative term. What is truly unfortunate is a plethora of various and asundry indications that Bushco has no intention of leaving Iraq whatever its tragic costs, however long:
It's going to depend on events over the next couple of years. It's to be determined. —General Richard Myers, December 16, 2003
The United States is committed to stay as long as is necessary in Iraq, but not one day more.
—Marc Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs, February 11, 2003.
Here is one of the more disturbing comments:
A four- or five-year occupation of Iraq by 65,000 regular and 35,000 reserve troops - a realistic possibility - will require a rotation base of 260,000 active troops . . . and 315,000 reserve troops . . . This illustration does not properly capture the full effect of our broader "war on terror" on our reservists. . . If another war begins, President Bush will still be able to mobilize plenty of military power. It is occupations that are the problem. If occupation of Iraq stretches into years and the "war on terrorism" widens even further, Army Reserve and National Guard units will be called to active service again and again - an activation rate far higher than the norm expected by our citizen soldiers, their families and their communities.These "quotes" are at odds with hints of "hints" of "major drawdowns" of American troops to a figure of less than 100,000 troops in Iraq by the end of 2006. It is simply not realistic to expect that Bush can withdraw some one-quarter of about about 136,000 American troops in the final quarter of this year! The "administration appears confused and contradictory, a symptom of a lost war and its utterly failed support of Israel in Lebanon II.
Nor is there any hope that America will soon regain a position in which it might play a more positive role. Not as long as Bush occupies the Oval Office. If I may paraphrase Antonin Scalia —the man who made possible Bush's maladministration —the melange of meaningless piffle about Iraq is not a recipe that will instill confidence in the ability of this administration to undo the many harms that it has already done and to right the wrong course upon which this nation is undoubtedly headed.
An update:
EU to provide 'backbone' of Lebanon force
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels on Friday (25 August) saw member states commit up to 9,000 troops to a UN force to oversee the fragile ceasefire in Lebanon.>The agreement means that thousands of UN troops will be deployed to the region within as little as a week.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who also attended the meeting in Brussels, welcomed the EU pledges saying they amounted to over half of the total 15,000 troops envisaged under the UN resolution governing the ceasefire.
"More than half the force has been pledged today. Not only troops on the ground but we also got naval assets as well as air assets and when you put it altogether Europe is providing the backbone to the force," he said. ...
The Existentialist Cowboy
Terror
Pentagon
Iraq
Endless War
11 comments:
"Has the sun set on US influence in the Middle East, and, indeed, worldwide?"
Len Hart
“No one who is honestly assessing the decline of American leverage around the world due to our energy dependence can fail to see that energy is the albatross of U.S. national security.”
Senator Richard G. Lugar, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
“We are seeing a radical change in how countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela on the supply side, and China and India on the demand side, bring the world marketplace to bear on foreign policy. I don’t think any of us have done a terribly good job of thinking through how far behind the eight ball we are on these issues”.
Carlos Pascuale, Director Foreign Policy Studies, the Brookings Institution
“…and we are here as on a darkling plain
swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight
where ignorant armies clash by night”.
Matthew Arnold, from “Dover Beach”
General Eric Shinseki assessed, prior to the commencement of festivities in Iraq, that the operation of wrestling Iraq to the ground and pacifying it to accept its new role would require "several hundreds of thousands of troops". In what came to be a hallmark of the Bush administration, the professional judgment of a senior military officer was widely ridiculed by top civilian offiials without a day in uniform. He was sidelined, and dismissed, by military genius Paul D. Wolfowitz (I suspect the "D" stands for "Dolt", or perhaps "Dunce").
Mr. Wolfowitz characterized Shinseki's appraisal as "wildly off the mark". Of course, now Bushco is struggling to find enough soldiers and marines to keep even Iraq and Afghanistan grinding along, having lowered the bar several times - accepting recruits with criminal records, drug problems, mental problems and those who would have been disqualified by age a few years ago.
Paul Wolfowitz, enabled by the King of the Monkeys, is wrecking the United States Ground Forces for years to come. Let's not even get into how he said Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and that the estimate of a half-trillion dollars in cost was "laughable". If he was in any other line of work, and stepped on his dick as many consecutive times as he has in this job, he'd be living in a cardboard box and eating out of dumpsters. Instead, he's president of the World Bank. There's a lesson there, but I'm not sure what it is.
Some people see the debacle of attempted nation-building in the Middle East as an inconvenience - a temporary loss of military momentum. Others, like the author of this blog, recognize it as a deep, perhaps mortal wound to American influence worldwide. The centre has failed to hold, and simple centrifugal force is flinging off bits in all directions. The U.S. is coming apart.
Examples are legion. Condoleezza Rice, perhaps the only neoconservative invertebrate who remembers what it was like to be an American, is persona non grata in the Middle East, except for Israel. No other state leader wants her radioactive presence. Bush disassembles that America should not take too active a hand in forming the Lebanon international peacekeeping force - in truth, his assistance is neither solicited or welcome. Europe, exclusive of Britain, is calling the shots now.
Iran's influence in the region, as a partner and patron of Hezbollah, has taken on powerful new momentum. When the school team wins, the whole school looks good. The U.S. is perceived to lack the military strength, bogged down with wars as it is, to force Iran to do anything - on the other hand, its diplomatic efforts may be safely rebuffed, since it has alienated pretty much every other major power with its arrogance. The only arrow left in the quiver is the nuclear option, which is unthinkable for the rest of the world.
No more, please, King Midas. Everything you touch turns to shit.
I'd say that Wolfowitz's position just confirms that leadership of American institutions is not chosen by merit, but by cronyism. Were Wolfy to have been, say, a manager at Chili's, by now he'd have been lucky to get a job as assistant manager at Carl's Jr (3rd shift).
I'm not sure I believe that Lord Bush sabotaged our role in the Lebanon thing, I think he just didnt have the resources (political and physical) to do anything about it. Assuming he's an Apocalyptophile (and I do), he's going to want to stay in the area (how great was the disappointment that this didnt lead to WWIII? Or do they just think the Devil's taking a little break?)
Yes, Dave, that's exactly what I meant - the decline in Bush's influence, combined with the myriad overextensions of American power on his watch, have left him with no wiggle room, political or physical. His asshat attitude ensures nobody will help, because it feels so good to see him fail.
I like the fast-food analogy; pure Jon Stewart.
Condoleezza Rice, perhaps the only neoconservative invertebrate who remembers what it was like to be an American, is persona non grata in the Middle East, except for Israel. No other state leader wants her radioactive presence.
Condo and Colin might have been the only intelligent members of this failed administration. Their plight is the result of a Faustian bargain. For Colin and Condo, ol' scratch has already come and gone. Condo's permanent state of stress can be heard in her shallow and uneven breathing. She is in a permanent state of anquish...if not hell.
She is in a permanent state of anquish...if not hell.
I think that's because it has dawned upon her that her career is over, and that she has lost any chance she might have had to run in 2008. Nope, Condosleazy, you won't be the first Black and the first woman president of the USA. Not a fat chance in hell - not even Diebold can help you now.
I meant to write "Not a snowflake's chance in hell". Lyrica is great against the Nerve Pain, but not very good for concentration!
S'okay Vierotchka...a fat chance in hell is equally descriptive and conjures up visions of pool hustlers. "Snowflakes chance in hell..." is a vivid image. I have not seen snowflakes in hell, but I have seen them in West Texas. Same thing!
Mark is exactly right. BBC reports that Chatham House, a London based think-tank, has declared Iran to be the big winner in the war on Terror. By removing rival governments in Iraq and Afghanistan without offering stable, viable replacements, The US and its allies have given Iran a golden opportunity to create an Islamic superstate in the region. That means coalition occupying forces can't leave. And we all know they can't stay. Talk about hugging the tar baby!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/ 5277362.stm
"We've seen really since 9/11 that the chief beneficiary of America's global war on terror in the Middle East has been the very country that it considers to be a major part or a founding member of the axis of evil. And that basically tells us that there's an enormous incoherence in American approach to the Middle East."
I would venture to say that when policy results in the opposite of stated objectives, that would be the very definition of incompetence. How much longer can America withstand this brand of decidering?
One point Mark missed; along with the crippling oil dependence America's shift from a net creditor nation to a net debtor will have long term effects that are unforestallable. Living in Canada I have watched the value of your currency fall from $1.50 CDN to a little above $1.10 since Bush took office, in spite of allies like Canada, the UK and Japan increasing their holdings in US treasury bonds. Your economy is like a wet paper bag full of heavy rocks. The multinationals have not only outsourced the indispensable value-added manufacturing jobs, they have also quietly been outsourcing capital. Look at one key industry, automobiles. GM is bleeding cash. Daimler-Chrysler is half German owned. Volvo has a healthy share of Ford. Sony owns Hollywood, once a big revenue generator. I could go on, but I don't want to worry you. Too true. Too sad.
With torso clamped and muscle-masked visage She is armoured.
That is very nearly a Shakespearean iambic pentameter, fuzzflash. And, at the same time, Haiku.
In any case, you've summed up an inauthentic mauvaise foi in a single potent line.
Sadbuttrue, Mark...great comments, articles in themselves. Indeed, Iran and Syria are made stronger. In the end, Bush will have failed to smash his "Axis of Evil"; he will have only empowered it, if "Axis" it is. If it had not been, it will be soon. Bush has the Midas touch, except that it is not gold but something considerably less attactive that he makes but upon a touch.
With regard to the idea that the Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq war is cynicism not seen since Hitler auctioned off the Reich to Thyssen, I.G. Farben, Krupp et al, or the Praetorians auctioning off the Roman Empire to Didius Julianus.
Bush and his GOP cabal should have read the story of Didius Julianus in Gibbon before embarking upon the "purchase" of the US Presidency. The story of Julianus is a cautionary tale:
After outbidding Sulpicianus, Didius Julianus was named emperor, and he received an oath of allegiance from the guards. After the armies of Britain, Syria and Pannonia declared against Julian, a civil war began. The Praetorian guards eventually deserted Didius Julianus, and he was condemned and executed by the Roman Senate on June 2nd of the same year.
Hey, Sad!! A fellow Canadian! Where are you writing from? Yes, you're right, the economy is in deep trouble, but two factors contribute to the general marsmallowing over of the damage so you can't see it. One, the war costs come in the form of "Emergency Supplementals" (which somehow does not jibe with the rebranding of the Global War on Terror as the "Long War" -what part of "Long" suggests it's actually going to be "Short"?)which don't show in the budget forecast. That way, the masters of disaster look like they're staying within reasonable limits, when in reality the deficit has achieved escape velocity, bound for the rings of Saturn.
Another is keeping interest rates artificially low, and allowing the steep devaluation of the dollar. Both are calculated gambles that the Chinese won't call in their marker, and the Japanese won't get too nervous and stop lending money. Which I would, if the T-bills I held were losing value every day. There must be some high-level ass-kissing going on there!
In no case is it sensible to push for generous tax cuts to benefit the wealthiest ten percent, while simultaneously fighting two wars, looking to start a third and juggling a failing economy.
Those who think Bush's earnest delivery when he talks about the economy indicates any degree of business acumen ought to check his record. He's run every business he ever managed into the ground on afterburner. However, as long as the slightest scintilla of hope for success in Iraq remains, so too remains the possibility of getting those development contracts (Production Sharing Agreements, PSA's) signed for Exxon and Chevron and the big boys to go in for the biggest oil payday in history. I'm talking oil that costs less than two bucks a barrel to get out of the ground, and sells for seventy.
Surely that's worth a few tears from soldiers' families.
Post a Comment