Undecided
07-01-04, 07:10 PM
After reading a very provocative article on the geo-political realities of the United States today, I feel inclined to share some of the very enlightening quotes from a very well thought out and planned article:
Since the end of World War II, the strategic aim of the United States has been to be the military guarantor of the capitalist market system, gaining thereby the economic benefits that follow from performing the role of protector.
----------------------------
The utopia of American security policy is a world of "market democracies" with stable representative institutions, open to trade and investment, and policed by the United States. Short of that ultimate goal, any regime that plays ball with the market system and does not threaten other states within that system has been acceptable. In the worst case, there has been tolerance of dictatorships that oppress segments of their populations and engage in wholesale corruption -- a prescription for long-term instability.
It is true what this article states, the best example of this is Iraq back in 1990-91.Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 thoroughly shaked the Americans, why? Firstly the Iraqi’s was a major military power at the time, one who in the decade prior was nothing less then a puppet of western interests in subverting the spread of Islamic Revolutionaries. To give Iraq control over Kuwait would mean that Saddam had control of about 200 billion barrels of oil, drastically increasing the relative power of Iraq in the world and the region. The reason why the US wanted Saddam gone is not because Saddam was a bad man, please America and other western powers have routinely employed the likes of Saddam to maintain the economic/political equilibrium worldwide. Saddam made America angry because he directly threatened American geo-political initiatives in the region, and held the US economy in his hands (in essence). Was Saddam justified in his invasion, one can argue yes one can argue that he wasn’t. Irregardless of the justifications the US intervention in Kuwait in 1991 is a perfect example of “Containment”.
The American experience of nation rebuilding in Iraq has shown that the United States is ill-equipped to undertake comprehensive regime change successfully in a former quasi-totalitarian state. Although Iraq is still a "work in progress," it now appears unlikely that it will become a stable market democracy in the near to medium term. The limits of American power revealed by the Iraq experience have effectively removed comprehensive regime change from the table for the present and have impaired the effectiveness of more modest measures. The United States would still prefer regime change in states such as Iran and North Korea, but it will probably have to settle for less.
There is no doubt that America can win her “wars” but that is a massive mischaracterization by yours truly, America can win her battles. Iraq will not be the state in which the US envisioned when she invaded, to be frank the US wants a secular, Kemal-esqe, Arabic democracy who is committed to Market forces, and gives nice cheap oil. What America is likely to get is a Shi’a theocracy with strong links to Iran, and just as likely a civil war that will spread to unknown levels of death and possibly involve major players. America is hastily moving the portfolio from Washington to Baghdad with the “transfer of power”. Bush said in his debates with Gore that the US should not engage in nation building, the US’ role is to win wars not complete them essentially. Bush was partially right, the US military is not geared for nation building. The US is a young empire, and I suspect a short lived one. The US has also sacrificed her geo-political strength internationally with the war in Iraq. The US military is overstretched, and tired. North Korea is actually is now geo-politically stronger today then it was before the Iraq war started, building nuclear weapons unabashedly, and even threatening to detonate one. What can the US do? Not much, for in essence the US has sacrificed a lot to get where she is now, and that’s really sad.
But the most important aspect of the article was this segement:
Islamic Revolution
-------------------------------
The third issue of containment faced by the United States concerns the stateless Islamic revolutionary movements, which also aim at regime change -- the replacement of the governments of states with majority Islamic populations with theocratic regimes, ultimately to be subsumed under a revived Caliphate. Mischaracterized as a "war on terror," the conflict with Islamic revolution is, for the United States, a struggle of counter-regime change. Military attacks by Islamic revolutionaries against the United States and its grand coalition of allies are meant to further the goal of regime change by weakening American resolve to prop up target states.
------------------------------------
Containing Islamic revolutionary movements was difficult enough before the Iraq intervention; it is now even more so. Recent waves of violence against the non-democratic regimes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan indicated increased instability in those states, as does the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United States does not have the resources to bolster weak regimes in the Islamic world, much less to engineer their democratization. It must rely on whomever will help it contain the revolutionaries, even if in the long run such alliances increase instability. The United States is constrained to condone the dictatorships in Uzbekistan and Sudan, to the point of being unable to act effectively to stop the ethnic cleansing/genocide in the latter's Darfur region.
---------------------------------
Having allowed a military enemy to grow up in the Islamic world, the United States cannot easily make concessions in a struggle which is an actual -- not a pre-emptive -- war. Appeasement is a theoretical possibility -- and, like most strategies, has its possible benefits -- but it is not a live policy option for domestic political reasons and, more importantly, because it would shift the balance of power too far to the disadvantage of the globalization project.
-------------------------------------
Given their clandestine nature, it is difficult to assess accurately the power of Islamic revolutionary movements. What is clear is that they are still active, possibly growing in strength and present a continuing challenge to a United States whose nation-state adversaries are emboldened and whose allies are skeptical. The American advantage in the conflict with Islamic revolution is the support it gains from regimes around the world, on the basis of their own self-interest. That advantage is considerable, but it is diminished by the presence of weak and unpopular regimes in the Islamic world, with which the United States is constrained to cooperate.
It seems pretty obvious that indeed the “war on terror” is really quite a mischaracterization of the actual struggle going on. This is a war that entails that we take into account the attitudes of 300 million Arabs and 1.3 billion Muslims. The US along with other powers has supported tyrannical and dangerous regimes to maintain a semblance of power in the world. The Islamic revolutionaries really want to do the same thing the US is doing, changing governments for their own interests. Their interests scare the living shit out of the West because of all the people in the world today; Arabs are the ones who have the most underutilized potential. To join the people of the Islamic world into a third Caliphate would add a third major world power to the mix, one that will have real power. The US is supporting people in the region that do it harm; “It must rely on whomever will help it contain the revolutionaries, even if in the long run such alliances increase instability.” And the US cannot do much against the nations she would (using the moral justification of Iraq’s invasion) find reprehensible. Most Americans don’t realize who the US deals with. The US’ insistence to be categorical, hypocritical, and hyperbolic in the face of the stark realties on the ground only gives the I.R.’s more cannon fodder to play with. The Iraq war and Invasion really has changed the equilibrium, and by the looks of it for the worse in the holistic perspective.
Since the end of World War II, the strategic aim of the United States has been to be the military guarantor of the capitalist market system, gaining thereby the economic benefits that follow from performing the role of protector.
----------------------------
The utopia of American security policy is a world of "market democracies" with stable representative institutions, open to trade and investment, and policed by the United States. Short of that ultimate goal, any regime that plays ball with the market system and does not threaten other states within that system has been acceptable. In the worst case, there has been tolerance of dictatorships that oppress segments of their populations and engage in wholesale corruption -- a prescription for long-term instability.
It is true what this article states, the best example of this is Iraq back in 1990-91.Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 thoroughly shaked the Americans, why? Firstly the Iraqi’s was a major military power at the time, one who in the decade prior was nothing less then a puppet of western interests in subverting the spread of Islamic Revolutionaries. To give Iraq control over Kuwait would mean that Saddam had control of about 200 billion barrels of oil, drastically increasing the relative power of Iraq in the world and the region. The reason why the US wanted Saddam gone is not because Saddam was a bad man, please America and other western powers have routinely employed the likes of Saddam to maintain the economic/political equilibrium worldwide. Saddam made America angry because he directly threatened American geo-political initiatives in the region, and held the US economy in his hands (in essence). Was Saddam justified in his invasion, one can argue yes one can argue that he wasn’t. Irregardless of the justifications the US intervention in Kuwait in 1991 is a perfect example of “Containment”.
The American experience of nation rebuilding in Iraq has shown that the United States is ill-equipped to undertake comprehensive regime change successfully in a former quasi-totalitarian state. Although Iraq is still a "work in progress," it now appears unlikely that it will become a stable market democracy in the near to medium term. The limits of American power revealed by the Iraq experience have effectively removed comprehensive regime change from the table for the present and have impaired the effectiveness of more modest measures. The United States would still prefer regime change in states such as Iran and North Korea, but it will probably have to settle for less.
There is no doubt that America can win her “wars” but that is a massive mischaracterization by yours truly, America can win her battles. Iraq will not be the state in which the US envisioned when she invaded, to be frank the US wants a secular, Kemal-esqe, Arabic democracy who is committed to Market forces, and gives nice cheap oil. What America is likely to get is a Shi’a theocracy with strong links to Iran, and just as likely a civil war that will spread to unknown levels of death and possibly involve major players. America is hastily moving the portfolio from Washington to Baghdad with the “transfer of power”. Bush said in his debates with Gore that the US should not engage in nation building, the US’ role is to win wars not complete them essentially. Bush was partially right, the US military is not geared for nation building. The US is a young empire, and I suspect a short lived one. The US has also sacrificed her geo-political strength internationally with the war in Iraq. The US military is overstretched, and tired. North Korea is actually is now geo-politically stronger today then it was before the Iraq war started, building nuclear weapons unabashedly, and even threatening to detonate one. What can the US do? Not much, for in essence the US has sacrificed a lot to get where she is now, and that’s really sad.
But the most important aspect of the article was this segement:
Islamic Revolution
-------------------------------
The third issue of containment faced by the United States concerns the stateless Islamic revolutionary movements, which also aim at regime change -- the replacement of the governments of states with majority Islamic populations with theocratic regimes, ultimately to be subsumed under a revived Caliphate. Mischaracterized as a "war on terror," the conflict with Islamic revolution is, for the United States, a struggle of counter-regime change. Military attacks by Islamic revolutionaries against the United States and its grand coalition of allies are meant to further the goal of regime change by weakening American resolve to prop up target states.
------------------------------------
Containing Islamic revolutionary movements was difficult enough before the Iraq intervention; it is now even more so. Recent waves of violence against the non-democratic regimes of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan indicated increased instability in those states, as does the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The United States does not have the resources to bolster weak regimes in the Islamic world, much less to engineer their democratization. It must rely on whomever will help it contain the revolutionaries, even if in the long run such alliances increase instability. The United States is constrained to condone the dictatorships in Uzbekistan and Sudan, to the point of being unable to act effectively to stop the ethnic cleansing/genocide in the latter's Darfur region.
---------------------------------
Having allowed a military enemy to grow up in the Islamic world, the United States cannot easily make concessions in a struggle which is an actual -- not a pre-emptive -- war. Appeasement is a theoretical possibility -- and, like most strategies, has its possible benefits -- but it is not a live policy option for domestic political reasons and, more importantly, because it would shift the balance of power too far to the disadvantage of the globalization project.
-------------------------------------
Given their clandestine nature, it is difficult to assess accurately the power of Islamic revolutionary movements. What is clear is that they are still active, possibly growing in strength and present a continuing challenge to a United States whose nation-state adversaries are emboldened and whose allies are skeptical. The American advantage in the conflict with Islamic revolution is the support it gains from regimes around the world, on the basis of their own self-interest. That advantage is considerable, but it is diminished by the presence of weak and unpopular regimes in the Islamic world, with which the United States is constrained to cooperate.
It seems pretty obvious that indeed the “war on terror” is really quite a mischaracterization of the actual struggle going on. This is a war that entails that we take into account the attitudes of 300 million Arabs and 1.3 billion Muslims. The US along with other powers has supported tyrannical and dangerous regimes to maintain a semblance of power in the world. The Islamic revolutionaries really want to do the same thing the US is doing, changing governments for their own interests. Their interests scare the living shit out of the West because of all the people in the world today; Arabs are the ones who have the most underutilized potential. To join the people of the Islamic world into a third Caliphate would add a third major world power to the mix, one that will have real power. The US is supporting people in the region that do it harm; “It must rely on whomever will help it contain the revolutionaries, even if in the long run such alliances increase instability.” And the US cannot do much against the nations she would (using the moral justification of Iraq’s invasion) find reprehensible. Most Americans don’t realize who the US deals with. The US’ insistence to be categorical, hypocritical, and hyperbolic in the face of the stark realties on the ground only gives the I.R.’s more cannon fodder to play with. The Iraq war and Invasion really has changed the equilibrium, and by the looks of it for the worse in the holistic perspective.