EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why We Won’t Leave Afghanistan or Iraq
Yes, We Could... Get Out!
Yes, we could. No kidding. We really could withdraw our massive armies, now close to 200,000 troops combined, from Afghanistan and Iraq (and that's not even counting our similarly large stealth army of private contractors, which helps keep the true size of our double occupations in the shadows). We could undoubtedly withdraw them all reasonably quickly and reasonably painlessly.
Not that you would know it from listening to the debates in Washington or catching the mainstream news. There, withdrawal, when discussed at all, seems like an undertaking beyond the waking imagination. In Iraq alone, all those bases to dismantle and millions of pieces of equipment to send home in a draw-down operation worthy of years of intensive effort, the sort of thing that makes the desperate British evacuation from Dunkirk in World War II look like a Sunday stroll in the park. And that's only the technical side of the matter.
Then there's the conviction that anything but a withdrawal that would make molasses in January look like the hare of Aesopian fable -- at least two years in Iraq, five to ten in Afghanistan -- would endanger the planet itself, or at least its most important country: us. Without our eternally steadying hand, the Iraqis and Afghans, it's taken for granted, would be lost. Without the help of U.S. forces, for example, would the Maliki government ever have been able to announce the death of the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq? Not likely, whereas the U.S. has knocked off its leadership twice, first in 2006, and again, evidently, last week.
Of course, before our troops entered Baghdad in 2003 and the American occupation of that country began, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. But that's a distant past not worth bringing up. And forget as well the fact that our invasions and wars have proven thunderously destructive, bringing chaos, misery, and death in their wake, and turning, for instance, the health care system of Iraq, once considered an advanced country in the Arab world, into a disaster zone(that -- it goes without saying -- only we Americans are now equipped to properly fix). Similarly, while regularly knocking off Afghan civilians at checkpoints on their roads and in their homes, at their celebrations and at work, we ignore the fact that our invasion and occupation opened the way for the transformation of Afghanistan into the first all-drug-crop agricultural nation and so the planet's premier narco-nation. It's not just that the country now has an almost total monopoly on growing opium poppies (hence heroin), but according to the latest U.N. report, it's now cornering the hashish market as well. That's diversification for you.
It's a record to stand on and, evidently, to stay on, even to expand on. We're like the famed guest who came to dinner, broke a leg, wouldn't leave, and promptly took over the lives of the entire household. Only in our case, we arrived, broke someone else's leg, and then insisted we had to stay and break many more legs, lest the world become a far more terrible place.
It's known and accepted in Washington that, if we were to leave Afghanistan precipitously, the Taliban would take over, al-Qaeda would be back big time in no time, and then more of our giant buildings would obviously bite the dust. And yet, the longer we've stayed and the more we've surged, the more resurgent the Taliban has become, the more territory this minority insurgency has spread into. If we stay long enough, we may, in fact, create the majority insurgency we claim to fear.
It's common wisdom in the U.S. that, before we pull our military out, Afghanistan, like Iraq, must be secured as a stable enough ally, as well as at least a fragile junior democracy, which consigns real departure to some distant horizon. And that sense of time may help explain the desire of U.S. officials to hinder Afghan President Hamid Karzai's attempts to negotiate with the Taliban and other rebel factions now. Washington, it seems, favors a "reconciliation process" that will last years and only begin after the U.S. military seizes the high ground on the battlefield.
The reality that dare not speak its name in Washington is this: no matter what might happen in an Afghanistan that lacked us -- whether (as in the 1990s) the various factions there leaped for each other's throats, or the Taliban established significant control, though (as in the 1990s) not over the whole country -- the stakes for Americans would be minor in nature. Not that anyone of significance here would say such a thing.
Tell me, what kind of a stake could Americans really have in one of the most impoverished lands on the planet, about as distant from us as could be imagined, geographically, culturally, and religiously? Yet, as if to defy commonsense, we've been fighting there -- by proxy and directly -- on and off for 30 years now with no end in sight.
Most Americans evidently remain convinced that "safe haven" there was the key to al-Qaeda's success, and that Afghanistan was the only place in which that organization could conceivably have planned 9/11, even though perfectly real planning also took place in Hamburg, Germany, which we neither bombed nor invaded.
In a future in which our surging armies actually succeeded in controlling Afghanistan and denying it to al-Qaeda, what about Somalia, Yemen, or, for that matter, England? It's now conveniently forgotten that the first, nearly successful attempt to take down one of the World Trade Center towers in 1993 was planned in the wilds of New Jersey. Had the Bush administration been paying the slightest attention on September 10, 2001, or had reasonable precautions been taken, including locking the doors of airplane cockpits, 9/11 and so the invasion of Afghanistan would have been relegated to the far-fetched plot of some Tom Clancy novel.
Vietnam and Afghanistan
Have you noticed, by the way, that there's always some obstacle in the path of withdrawal? Right now, in Iraq, it's the aftermath of the March 7th election, hailed as proof that we brought democracy to the Middle East and so, whatever our missteps, did the right thing. As it happens, the election, as many predicted at the time, has led to a potentially explosive gridlock and has yet to come close to resulting in a new governing coalition. With violence on the rise, we're told, the planned drawdown of American troops to the 50,000 level by August is imperiled. Already, the process, despite repeated assurances, seems to be proceeding slowly.
And yet, the thought that an American withdrawal should be held hostage to events among Iraqis all these years later, seems curious. There's always some reason to hesitate -- and it never has to do with us. Withdrawal would undoubtedly be far less of a brain-twister if Washington simply committed itself wholeheartedly to getting out, and if it stopped convincing itself that the presence of the U.S. military in distant lands was essential to a better world (and, of course, to a controlling position on planet Earth).
The annals of history are well stocked with countries which invaded and occupied other lands and then left, often ingloriously and under intense pressure. But they did it.
It's worth remembering that, in 1975, when the South Vietnamese Army collapsed and we essentially fled the country, we abandoned staggering amounts of equipment there. Helicopters were pushed over the sides of aircraft carriers to make space; barrels of money were burned at the U.S. Embassy in Saigon; military bases as large as anything we've built in Iraq or Afghanistan fell into North Vietnamese hands; and South Vietnamese allies were deserted in the panic of the moment. Nonetheless, when there was no choice, we got out. Not elegantly, not nicely, not thoughtfully, not helpfully, but out.
Keep in mind that, then too, disaster was predicted for the planet, should we withdraw precipitously -- including rolling communist takeovers of country after country, the loss of "credibility" for the American superpower, and a murderous bloodbath in Vietnam itself. All were not only predicted by Washington's Cassandras, but endlessly cited in the war years as reasons not to leave. And yet here was the shock that somehow never registered among all the so-called lessons of Vietnam: nothing of that sort happened afterwards.
Today, Vietnam is a reasonably prosperous land with friendly relations with its former enemy, the United States. After Vietnam, no other "dominos" fell and there was no bloodbath in that country. Of course, it could have been different -- and elsewhere, sometimes, it has been. But even when local skies darken, the world doesn't end.
And here's the truth of the matter: the world won't end, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in the United States, if we end our wars and withdraw. The sky won't fall, even if the U.S. gets out reasonably quickly, even if subsequently blood is spilled and things don't go well in either country.
We got our troops there remarkably quickly. We're quite capable of removing them at a similar pace. We could, that is, leave. There are, undoubtedly, better and worse ways of doing this, ways that would further penalize the societies we've invaded, and ways that might be of some use to them, but either way we could go.
A Brief History of American Withdrawal
Of course, there's a small problem here. All evidence indicates that Washington doesn't want to withdraw -- not really, not from either region. It has no interest in divesting itself of the global control-and-influence business, or of the military-power racket. That's hardly surprising since we're talking about a great imperial power and control (or at least imagined control) over the planet's strategic oil lands.
And then there's another factor to consider: habit. Over the decades, Washington has gotten used to staying. The U.S. has long been big on arriving, but not much for departure. After all, 65 years later, striking numbers of American forces are still garrisoning the two major defeated nations of World War II, Germany and Japan. We still have about three dozen military bases on the modest-sized Japanese island of Okinawa, and are at this very moment fighting tooth and nail, diplomatically speaking, not to be forced to abandon one of them. The Korean War was suspended in an armistice 57 years ago and, again, striking numbers of American troops still garrison South Korea.
Similarly, to skip a few decades, after the Serbian air campaign of the late 1990s, the U.S. built-up the enormous Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo with its seven-mile perimeter, and we're still there. After Gulf War I, the U.S. either built or built up military bases and other facilities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, as well as the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. And it's never stopped building up its facilities throughout the Gulf region. In this sense, leaving Iraq, to the extent we do, is not quite as significant a matter as sometimes imagined, strategically speaking. It's not as if the U.S. military were taking off for Dubuque.
A history of American withdrawal would prove a brief book indeed. Other than Vietnam, the U.S. military withdrew from the Philippines under the pressure of "people power" (and a local volcano) in the early 1990s, and from Saudi Arabia, in part under the pressure of Osama bin Laden. In both countries, however, it has retained or regained a foothold in recent years. President Ronald Reagan pulled American troops out of Lebanon after a devastating 1983 suicide truck bombing of a Marines barracks there, and the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, functionally expelled the U.S. from Manta Air Base in 2008 when he refused to renew its lease. ("We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorian base," he said slyly.) And there were a few places like the island of Grenada, invaded in 1983, that simply mattered too little to Washington to stay.
Unfortunately, whatever the administration, the urge to stay has seemed a constant. It's evidently written into Washington's DNA and embedded deep in domestic politics where sure-to-come "cut and run" charges and blame for "losing" Iraq or Afghanistan would cow any administration. Not surprisingly, when you look behind the main news stories in both Iraq and Afghanistan, you can see signs of the urge to stay everywhere.
In Iraq, while President Obama has committed himself to the withdrawal of American troops by the end of 2011, plenty of wiggle room remains. Already, the New York Times reports, General Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in that country, is lobbying Washington to establish "an Office of Military Cooperation within the American Embassy in Baghdad to sustain the relationship after... Dec. 31, 2011." ("We have to stay committed to this past 2011," Odierno is quoted as saying. "I believe the administration knows that. I believe that they have to do that in order to see this through to the end. It's important to recognize that just because U.S. soldiers leave, Iraq is not finished.")
If you want a true gauge of American withdrawal, keep your eye on the mega-bases the Pentagon has built in Iraq since 2003, especially gigantic Balad Air Base (since the Iraqis will not, by the end of 2011, have a real air force of their own), and perhaps Camp Victory, the vast, ill-named U.S. base and command center abutting Baghdad International Airport on the outskirts of the capital. Keep an eye as well on the 104-acre U.S. embassy built along the Tigris River in downtown Baghdad. At present, it's the largest "embassy" on the planet and represents something new in "diplomacy," being essentially a military-base-cum-command-and-control-center for the region. It is clearly going nowhere, withdrawal or not.
In fact, recent reports indicate that in the near future "embassy" personnel, including police trainers, military officials connected to that Office of Coordination, spies, U.S. advisors attached to various Iraqi ministries, and the like, may be more than doubled from the present staggering staff level of 1,400 to 3,000 or above. (The embassy, by the way, has requested $1,875 billion for its operations in fiscal year 2011, and that was assuming a staffing level of only 1,400.) Realistically, as long as such an embassy remains at Ground Zero Iraq, we will not have withdrawn from that country.
Similarly, we have a giant U.S. embassy in Kabul (being expanded) and another mega-embassy being built in the Pakistani capital Islamabad. These are not, rest assured, signs of departure. Nor is the fact that in Afghanistan and Pakistan, everything war-connected seems to be surging, even if in ways often not noticed here. President Obama's surge decision has been described largely in terms of those 30,000-odd extra troops he's sending in, not in terms of the shadow army of 30,000 or more extra private contractors taking on various military roles (and dying off the books in striking numbers); nor the extra contingent of CIA types and the escalating drone war they are overseeing in the Pakistani tribal borderlands; nor the quiet doubling of Special Operations units assigned to hunt down the Taliban leadership; nor the extra State department officials for the "civilian surge"; nor, for instance, the special $10 million "pool" of funds that up to 120 U.S. Special Operations forces, already in those borderlands training the paramilitary Pakistani Frontier Corps, may soon have available to spend "winning hearts and minds."
Perhaps it's historically accurate to say that great powers generally leave home, head elsewhere armed to the teeth, and then experience the urge to stay. With our trillion-dollar-plus wars and yearly trillion-dollar-plus national-security budget, there's a lot at stake in staying, and undoubtedly in fighting two, three, many Afghanistans (and Iraqs) in the years to come.
Sooner or later, we will leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's too late in the history of this planet to occupy them forever and a day. Better sooner.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book, co-authored with Nick Turse, is Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050. His other most recent book is The United States of Fear (Haymarket Books). Previous books include: The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
57 Comments so far
Show AllI like this guys style of writing...
Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government right
before he left office....Aug this year to withdraw all,
get this, but "non-combatent" troops, what ever they are, it
amouts to 50,000 troops plus contractors...
About six months before the Iraqi elections, Obama started
muttering that if there was any violence sourounding the
Iraqi elections, we probably will have to delay the
withdraw agreement.
You bet this, there has been a CIA agent chief helping that
violence along latly.
The U.S. never , ever intended not to permanently occupy
Iraq, for strategic and resource reasons. Obama as big of a
liar as Bush ever was and not any more believable.
For the United States war has become a permant condition.
"Sooner or later, we will leave both Iraq and Afghanistan."
The later time may not be until all of the oil and natural gas resources in these regions are depleted.
And how can someone write an article like this without mentioning that Iraq's oil has been privatized by Big Oil via new contracts with the Iraqi green zone government and that Afghanistan is the pipeline corridor for the exploitation of Central Asian gas and oil ?
The Afghanistan plan is to market Central Asian energy to India and other Asian nations. Big profits for big oil and the corporate war machine.
Obomber is marching in lockstep with American corporate fascism with the marriage between Big Oil and the MIC.
But of course all of this is being paid for by the American taxpayer and the dead and wounded.
These corporate war crimes are a case of public debt for private profit and the transfer of wealth from the many to the few.
Therein the heart of the problem. One does not like to wish ill upon another but in the case of the United States of America, there seems to be little choice.
If the economy recovers and America "Booms" once again, it will only be because they have stolen the resources of other lands and that economic recovery will prompt more of the same.
I see little in the way of American Citizens moving to end the wars.
Given how the warfare state has turned the American Citizen into little more then wage slaves wherein an ever smaller fewer at the top garner a greater share of the wealth while the Middle Class disappears (the GINI number is well on its way to 4th world status) , total economic collapse might not only be best for the peoples of Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere, it might well be best for the citizens of the USA.
Jill: I agree with the points you make in your post!
I wish, but wishing doesn't get us anywhere, that massive peaceful protests could emerge organically. However, I have attended peace and anti-war rallies and protests here in NYC over the past couple of years, and the left is NOT showing up. In fact, a few months ago, I participated in a rally in Times Square and, possibly, 50 people attended. If 50 people attended a rally in Lincoln, NE, where I spent a number of years, I would feel good. In NYC, though, that's a VERY disappointing turnout. NYC is a city of 8 million people.
At the same time, there are some anti-nuclear events coming up, and maybe, that issue will unite and re-energize some of the forces behind the peace and anti-war movements. I also agree that this is the "preferable choice" to complete economic collapse. I'd like to be more optimistic, but this administration, Obama led, is as entrenched in the MIC as the Bush administration.
Something I noticed a few weeks ago -- I don't often watch TV, but my son wasn't home, so I turned on his TV, and turned the channel to TNT to watch an old episode of Law and Order, a program I still enjoy watching if I get a chance. I wasn't paying much attention to the commercial breaks, when suddenly, I heard the phrase, "Brought to you by the U.S. Marines." I looked up, and noted that the advertisement was for an NBA game that was to be broadcast that night. I thought that I might have misunderstood the ad, but no, I didn't. TNT ran the same ad during the next commercial break, and this time, I was paying close attention. How much does it cost the U.S. Marines, meaning US, we the people, to sponsor an NBA game? No doubt, taxes pay for the sponsorship, and the ad as well. After thinking about it, I realized that the target audience for the basketball game would be recruitable. Our tax dollars are supporting M$M, MIC and U.S. sports -- as American as "apple pie," they would claim.
On April 9, 2010, Bill Moyers interviewed Andrew Bacevich on the Journal. From that interview:
"Well, I have to say, and I mean, I'm sure this sounds too simplistic. It would be way too simplistic for people in Washington. But if you want to get out of a war, you get out of a war. I mean, you call General McChrystal and say, 'Your mission has changed. And your mission is to organize an orderly extrication of US forces.'" -- Andrew Bacevich
For anyone who hasn't already watched the program, it's worth the time:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04092010/profile2.html
"One thing I thought of was going to the malls wearing tee shirts with the financial and body counts printed on them. Then the cost of the bailout. At the bottom of the shirt could be a website for more information." -- Jill
During the Bush years, the authorities arrested people in malls who were wearing peace and anti-war t-shirts, but I still think your idea is good! I would be happy to wear a t-shirt while walking on the streets of NYC. The shirts would certainly invite conversations with people, and probably a few arguments as well. But, we do need to actively engage with the masses.
I can't help but think that the "anybody but Bush campaign" in 2004 helped to neutralized the left. I've also read that the Obama administration called the money men, like George Soros, and told them to keep the minions, protesters, quiet -- to threaten defunding the organizations if necessary. This is the danger of making alliances with big money. They can pull the strings and pull the funds/money for organizing.
I agree -- We also need "teach-ins" about the economic crisis. Even though people are angry and have an intuitive sense that they are losing, most people don't have enough of the particulars to squash some of the arguments that keep coming up in conversations.
Our conversation reminds me that I watched Bill Maher Friday night for the first time in a long time, and Simon Johnson was on the show. Bill Maher asked him to explain the financial crisis, and then, shut him down just as quickly. Although Bill Maher is a comedian, he has chosen to make politics his mission. More importantly, Bill Maher has an audience. Even though Bill Maher doesn't understand finance, maybe a few people in his direct audience, and amongst his viewing audience as well, might pick up a few important facts from Simon Johnson, a better understanding, and then enlighten a few other people. Bill Maher shut down that possibility. Several months ago -- my son has HBO, and all I have is a DVD player connected to my TV -- I watched Bill Maher shut down Matt Taibbi in the same way. I was so ticked off, I quit watching him even when I had a chance. Friday night, I was so disappointed to watch him do the same thing to Simon Johnson. I chalked it up to Bill Maher's ego, which he forgot to check at the door.
I am open to ideas!
"It's not an accident that we don't hear a coherent leftist vision of the economic devastation or the wars of empire." -- Jill
I agree -- it is NO accident that the left is so fragmented.
I didn't like Rahm Emanuel prior to Obama appointing him as his chief advisor. I shudder whenever I hear his name.
I first read about the Obama administration calling the money men, specifically George Soros, when Jane Hamsher wrote that she had information that George Soros, who funds MoveOn.org, received a call from the administration about keeping the minions quiet, and out of the streets. I also read about the Common Purpose meeting. It's very scary!
I once heard Noam Chomsky say that if a person chooses to be an activist, that person can't just put their big toe in the water, and expect anything to change. An activist has to be an activist 24/7.
We need to get back to true grassroots -- without the moneymen.
BTW, I agree with you about Jon Stewart, too. Once in a while, I watch a clip of his show on one of the progressive websites, but these days, I'm not noticing nearly as many clips being offered. That tells me that he isn't as relative as he once was to progressives.
Jill,
Here is an excellent rant by Bill Maher. Yes, he goes after the Tea Baggers, but if you watch the whole six minutes, he ties them in nicely with the bloated military and the American Empire.
http://politicalirony.com/2010/04/25/deficit-reduction-how-about-cutting-imperialism/
Sioux Rose
JILL: I would add a #3, which would be earth changes of consequence, and/or the elementals acting on the mandate of Universal Law. No nation is above the law of karma, and the US has repeatedly acted like an unrepentent, smug, self-righteous serial killer. There comes a time when the higher forces play equalizer, although utlimately, like empires that came before it, the same lessons of hubris are operating to take the monster down on the basis of its own misdeeds. Due to the costs of imperial over-reach and the current decimation (it's being held up by smoke and mirrors right now) of the US dollar (and industry-driven economy), the nation's infrastructure is imploding from within, the health of its citizens (mental, physical AND spiritual) is at risk in large measure due to all the unregulated processed, irradiated, and GM-altered foodstuffs, and its education... which is to say investment in posterity, is a bad joke. Therefore "entity is meeting self," as in: the nation will be forced to endure the blowback of its own deeds, sadly, those selected by a small band of sociopaths who have engineered a false basis for consent by gaining control of an incredibly powerful and near-hypnotic mass media machine.
And speaking for Fox Maulder, maybe there's a #4: alien invasion, anyone?
The corporate warfare designers of our world are committed to playing their grand chess game schemes all over the planet resting assured that Americans have a VERY short term memory. To them the world is but a chessboard to be dominated. Their ruthless means of war, exploitation, invasion, occupation, and grand larceny are the means justified towards their end of world supremacy. We are currently being dominated by a generation of technocrats stubbornly committed in spreading the domain of the Global Empire wherever there is "loot" to be secured, and "dominoes" to set in motion in order to ripen the terrain for global kleptocracy by the oligarch classes.
Americans of conscience need to stand up and resist being swept into a cannibalistic fervor in chase of "the golden calf" of materialism, insatiable consumption, and the infantile pretense of having to believe oneself as better than the rest of humanity. American apathy to the lessons of history in favor of a self-referential culture of instant gratification and personal success is constantly being manipulated by the purveyors of the corporate warfare economy as they exploit the illusory divisions of the us versus them mindset. The alarming reality is that all across the world the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer as the heavy hand of the police/military state and economic privatization of public resources continues to gain ground. Class divisions , national identifications, racial and religious bigotry all contribute to furthering the chaotic war-like relationship cultures maintain with each other. The living planet continues to manifest very real symptoms that the predominant paradigms adopted by the human species as a template for living off the planet instead of co-existing with it is edging us all closer and closer to a catastrophic point of no return.
Sioux Rose
AD NOSEUM: Great post. I see and relate to everything you stated. Unimaginable, isn't it? Or as Shakespeare put it, "How can thinking men think so wrongly." (The quote applies to those in decision making capacities. With so much at stake, they choose the temporal profit over the enduring valuables.)
"Withdrawal" will take place when the Iraqis and the Afghans throw us out. This is inevitable and only a question of time.
The overlooked aspect of our continuing occupation of Iraq (for oil) and Afghanistan (for oil/gas pipeline routes) is what this portends for US cooperation in stemming global warming (vs. pursuing the carbon-industries objectives). Clearly we mean to stay on a carbon-based energy system. With the money we've put into these wars so far we could have built hundreds of thousands of wind turbines, several solar thermal plants, had a conservation project that could have cut our energy needs in half, raised mileage requirements... you can imagine... but you'd have to since we went to war instead. In order to stay addicted to a filthy, insecure energy system that makes a few people very wealthy. The US doesn't suffer from mental inertia, we don't occupy other countries because of some habit. Powerful people decide these things to advance the policies that make them rich. Those policies should never be excluded from the discussion.
I'm not sure we are there for oil and gas. I think it has to do with domestic politics. As Engelhardt said in the article, no US president wants to be declared the "loser" in a military conflict, especially Democrats. If a Democratic president would "lose" in Afghanistan, the electorate would vote in Republicans. Remember: tons of loot goes with political power.
The one thing that pleases me is--when I talk to veterans of these wars, Iraq and Afghanistan--they are not big-time supporters, for the most part. They are pissed off that they are fighting a war someplace that nobody cares about, that offers no obvious benefits for ordinary working people of this country. Maybe the universe of people I meet is pretty small, but I am hearing that the American people are getting fed up with this waste of money, arms, and men and women.
You write "I'm not sure we are there for oil and gas. I think it has to do with domestic politics. As Engelhardt said in the article, no US president wants to be declared the "loser" in a military conflict, especially Democrats."
I'm confused. Your comment seems to ignore the fact that the US invaded those countries in the first place, and focuses on just one tiny facet as why Democrats would have us remain there for politcal reasons.
Surely you don't discount the obvious chess move for control over resources in that region of the world.
You write, "With the money we've put into these wars so far we could..." yes, it makes me ill to see such a waste of lives and wealth. What more proof do we need that the corporate plutocracy are traitors to the human race.
I think that we may leave sooner than Mr Englhardt thinks.
The collapse of the US economy will limit the funds available for these incredibly expensive wars.
The domestic situation in the USA is approaching a crisis. This will inevitably sap the support for the war and increase militant populist activity.
Soon the choice will be completely out in the open for all to see. What will it be, America? Empire or republic?
"The collapse of the US economy will limit the funds available for these incredibly expensive wars."
That seems to be the pattern. Rome, Britain, France, Germany, Spain all followed a similar motivation.
"The collapse of the US economy will limit the funds available for these incredibly expensive wars."
Heads up!
That is WHY Obama, Too Many Democrats and All Republicons are talking about partially or totally reforming/"privatizing" Social Security; to get at that money to fund these "Forever Wars Of Empire". Can't tax the rich you know.
That would result in all out civil war.
Maybe Obama can do what Nixon did. In 1973 Nixon announced that we were having "Peace with honor".
Get out, just do it.
I think that we're still hoping in vain for thousands of Iraqi and Afghani war brides. I haven't seen even one such bride in my neighborhood. Yours?
Good article, but much too long to say what the real reasons for the US staying: Money and cowardice.
War makes billions for war mongering defense contractors. They buy Congressmen and Senators and human life means nothing to any of these miscreants.
The United States never admitted it was wrong in the Spanish American War, the Phillipines in 1899, Vietnam and certainly not in Iraq. A person who is afraid to admit they are wrong is a coward and the United States is a coward.
Communism was never a threat, terrorism is not a threat. Both are issues that need scrutinizing, but neither could or can be remotely considered threats. In both instances(Vietnam and Iraq), the United States Presidents were afraid of what the world would think after we blew off our mouths on each subject, communism and terrorism, and cowardly acted so the world wouldn't think us for what we really are - cowards.
The sorry thing is that Vietnam, after we killed 4.5 million of it's population, still treats us as a friend. It would have been better had the Vietnamese in this country and theirs, lauched a counter attack of 'terrorism' to even the score that would have awoken the US to the fact that we have to quit meddling in other people's affairs.
Bin Laden tried to even the score against the US's support of Israel holocausting the Palestinians. He was as right in doing what he did as the Vietnamese would be right to exact their revenge.
Whoever or whatever "Bin Laden" is or was, the focus was Saudi Arabia not Israel.
Put that into your equations when you try to estimate the genuiness of "Al Qaeda" as supposed international "Terror" masterminds.
Also that "Bin Laden" was a US ally in Afghanistan, where Israel also played a role against the Soviets.
And there was no "Al Qaeda" in Iraq until the US invaded and occupied, along with hordes of Israeli contractors in sanitized uniforms, including at Abu Gharaib.
Now suddenly that Sadr and Allawi have the winning hand in Iraq, "Al Qaeda" appears again in force to bomb--to split Sunni and Shi'a.
This is just scratching the surface.
(deleted double post, oops!)
Good article, save his accepting the official mythology of 9/11.
Yes, good article but there's one thing that still just really vexes me in regard to the concept of where the "safe havens" are. I am NOT advocating war like actions anywhere without cause or even with cause if we can avoid it as it obviously is a disasterous racket...but please let's remember that the (predominately Saudi Arabian) 911 hijackers "safe haven" for training was the USA! I live in South Florida and I can take you to the FedEx Kinkos that a few of them frequented. They trained here at flight schools, had bank accounts under phony ids at SunTrust (Warren Buffet's bank)and an apartment building that they rented a unit in was just knocked down. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/keyword/mohamed-atta
And, lest we also forget that one of the first anthrax deaths was at the South Florida World Headquarters of the Weekly World News http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/19938952/
that dared to publish the photo of the drunken Bush twins. I could go on but it's too exhausting to even think about anymore...just sayin'
It's amazing how naive one can be when young. Every day, with every new and blaring development, the new insights I experiance are so... I can't even think of a word. I am trying to come up with a new philosophy of life. That's it. Actually, I've been trying to do that since I first came to terms with why we went to war with Iraq,hearing a really good Democracy now just as the decision to go or not to go was being decided ( in public, since we know that Bush and Co. already decided to go).
Having to come up with a new way to think of life is not so easy at 52. Especially with two kids only 13 and 10 to finish raising. It's really awful to think of what they may have to be dealing with.
One of Englehardts lines made me think that my thoughts on peak oil-how that will help bring down the MIC of the USA, may not happen at least for a very long time. Why- Because with their constant strategic placing of them selves all over the planet they are able to control and own much of the oil that is being pumped out.
But, on David Barsamian's show on NPR the other day, Michael(?) Clare (?) gave his lecture on what the new wars of the 21st century will be about. Resources, resource wars. Now, of course I have been hearing that because of peak oil and climate change,that the new century's wars will center on resources. But again sometimes when you hear the same info, you get a better perspective of it. I see an even clearer picture of how the USA is placing it'self so that it controls the flow of oil in order to keep it's massive empire. It's just clearer.
Yes, I have read Michael Klare. The MIC elite must have the latest intelligence on Peak Oil, climate change, etc.. Yes, it does look they are executing a Plan. And their Plan is going to continue to cause untold pain, misery and death around the world, and they dont care.
However, as noted above, as the Empire goes bankrupt and this country's standard of living slides into third world levels for most of the populace, there might be tremendous domestic revolt. How will that turn out? I dont know.
correction. noted below by dreamjosehill
A few years ago, I read Michael Klare's book, Blood and Oil, and I was so depressed by the truth he conveyed in the book -- how interwoven into the very literal fabric of this country OIL is -- I felt that serious change was hopeless. However, if we had real leaders, leaders with a true sense of humanity, instead of capitulators, moneymen and managers who continue to support the status quo, those in charge would already be effecting a serious plan to slowly extricate us from this country's dependence upon oil, one thread at a time. Instead, those in charge choose to engage in additional wars. Their ears are closed to discussion. They don't hear us.
There are NO easy solutions.
"And their Plan is going to continue to cause untold pain, misery and death around the world, and they dont care." -- Kitaj
Sioux Rose
KAY: Thank you for a right-on post. I would add that the leaders often make direct profit from oil, if not the direct pursuit-of-energy wars (of course hidden with better sounding PR rationales) themselves; and therein lies the obscenity of it all.
Yawn ... more lies ... zzzz
"U.S. Base Construction — The third major mission the army's engineers are engaged in is building facilities for the bed-down of U.S. forces [in Iraq]. 'Again the numbers are staggering,' Holt says. Most of work is being done through KBR. 'Interesting program in the several billion dollar range,' Holt says."
http://enr.construction.com/news/bizlabor/archives/031020.asp
Biggest Base in Iraq Has Small-Town Feel ...
"'It's like putting Chicago-O'Hare right in the middle of Iraq,' said Air Force Lt. Col. Tate Johnson"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302994_pf.html
Meanwhile, the Defense Department* last week identified the following American military personnel killed in Afghanistan and Iraq:
Charlie C. Antonio, private first class, Army; Robert J. Barrett, sergeant, Army National Guard; Michael K. Ingram Jr.,`sergeant, Army; John K. Laborde, sergeant major, Army National Guard; James R. Patton, staff sergeant, Army; Randolph A. Sigley, sergeant, Army National Guard
*although the battlefield cause of death was cited in this report, not a word about one other cause of death, namely, the military itself having lied to these soldiers as to why they were being sent off to war.
Three lies accepted by the brainwashed American public are: 'We are the freest country on earth.' This is total bullshit as anybody who has travelled or lived anywhere else for any length of time understands. Then there is this one: America wants peace. Anyone that believes this needs their head examined and finally this: We are not here (name of country invaded) to takeover your country and we are here to bring you freedom and then we will leave. 1.- We are heading towards a corporate theocracy at home. 2.- we are the biggest warmongering nation in the history of the world and 3.- We will appoint a puppet regime and after having killed enough people over 10 or 20 years we will stay indefinitely to insure things always go our way.
The US will be leaving Afghanistan sooner rather than later. If not by rout, when the mainland Chinese simply say to the US, as they have been hinting recently they may do soon, "Out!". If the US does not heed that "Out!", that too will be a rout within six months.
The bottom line is that the mainland Chinese will never allow the US and NATO to dominate Afghanistan.
The pipeline may be built--but its controllers will not be the US or Britain or Germany or any NATO nations.
It will be locals.
Look on the map--the US in Afghanistan is another key reason that the Chinese are aligned with Iran.
Right now they find the Americans useful to a degree, but they are proving to be more and more of a headache with the shambles they have so brutally and clumsily wrought over nine years.
Let's put a question on the table:
Do Socialists and Liberals represent different points on the same political continuum?
Let's consider the issue of War.
Consider:
The last few years have proven that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issues of war and peace. On the primary issues of wars for empire, on "American Interests", on global interventionism, on the network of American bases worldwide, on the use of private contractors and mercenaries, on the maintenance of the largest military budgets in history, and even in the characterization of military policy, the Democrats and Republicans have been nearly indistinguishable from each other. If we put aside purely cosmetic issues such as who is the more "competent" in the prosecution of war or who treats veterans more fairly, the only real differences between the two parties appears as a preference for more war in Iraq versus more war in Afghanistan.
And what is the role of the Liberals in this? In truth, there is a range of opinion but none of it rises to the level of open opposition to the wars of the current regime. On the one hand, the Liberal Left has been the left-apologists for war, raising issues as desperate and as hypocritical as to advocate imperial wars for political liberation, the defense of the rights of women" or of "democracy", or in ridiculous jingoism founded on the fear of "terrorism"... "the world is a dangerous place." On the other hand, even when marginal Liberal opposition to the war exists, the Liberals have been extremely careful to moderate their opposition, to assign it a lower priority than the maintenance of the present regime (because the Republicans could be "worse") and to segregate that opposition from a thoroughgoing opposition to military and foreign policy, specifically, and imperialism, generally. Where is the major liberal organization or leader who stands in open opposition to Empire? Where is the opposition that even begins to go beyond abstract "morality"?
Contrast this to the position of the Socialists, who first rally to the flag inscribed with "Working people of all countries unite", who oppose every war, every adventure and every military expenditure as a means of strengthening their exploiters, who regard every military institution as eliminating even the possibility of economic democracy while rapidly undermining the political democracy, whatever its degree of evolution may be. Where is there a single point of commonality with Liberalism?
Ironically, the only faction of the existing body politic which even begins to come close to the policy of the Socialists is the Republican radical isolationist faction centered on Ron Paul. The problem here is that this same faction is one of the most reactionary in American politics, standing with one foot in radical Libertarianism and the other in crypto-Fascism. As such, there is no possibility of common action, the convergence of policy on this most important (but singular) issue counting as only a curiosity. Still, the Paul cult makes a lie of the Left-Liberal claim that open anti-interventionist policy cannot survive in American politics. It cannot survive in Liberal politics, because the Liberals fundamentally support war and support Empire.
On this first and most important issue, the Liberals have nothing in common with the Socialists. There is nothing to "split".
The US is a predatory Capitalist warfare state.
The US is Communism for the rich, Capitalism for the poor.
The US is from each according to new, to each according to greed.
Sioux Rose
MCOYOTE: Thanks for a post that puts much into elegant (or should I say an easy to understand) perspective.
You make a lot of good points. Similarly the communists in the first half of the 20th century opposed the New Deal and war. They therefore agreed on many issues with the Old Right or libertarians of the day. Both of the groups saw the New Deal as a corporate bailout.
The point in your post where you dramatically diverge from logic is where you call Ron Paul libertarians a fascist group. Everyone knows the famous quote that fascism is the merger of corporate and state power. Ron Paul is in Washington every day fighting against what he calls crony corporatism or the merger of corporate and state power. This is an extremely important issue to all supporters of Ron Paul that the power of government and the power of corporations not be merged into ever-growing and more powerful alliances. The difference between the libertarian view and that of the statist left is that libertarians believe that powerful centralized governments inevitably lead to abuse of power and fascism so government should be as small as possible. Statists believe that the bigger and more powerful the government the less corrupt it will be. By the way, many anarchists, classical liberals and left-libertarians support Ron Paul and call themselves libertarians so libertarians can also be called the left just not the statist left. But they certainly cannot be called fascist.
Ron Paul is no Libertarian.
I agree with this. I have always been very skeptical of Ron Paul. his real interest, imo, is to preserve what he calls "MINE" -- which is great wealth...and therefore is no different from the openly more fascistic "conservatives" and "privatizers" whose only real interests behind their proclamations of "individual liberty" , "small government", "low taxes", "deregulation" is to ENSURE that NO organization or institution be enabled to PROTECT common property (if we can even call "EARTH" our "property") ...including the distribution of the benefits of use of that "property" ....
and tehrefore to ALLOW these people, LIKE RON PAUL, to USE "libertarianism" (individual liberty) - as a way to justify what is really an exploitative and predatory nature towards others...with THEMSELVES as the people with the greatest "liberty"
OVER and above others.
Ron Paul, imo, whatever his rantings against "merger of government and private corporations" -- is doing so ONLY because it is shown to be such a FAILURE and IS fascistic and he doesn't want to be associate with it - after claiming "libertarianism" for himself.....and regardless of his positions - such as "antiwar" which is good in itself and very important...
is STILL a CORPORATIST - a PRIVATE corporation , free-market, privatizer CORPORATIST.
and that is essentially - the SAME thing that leads BACK to FASCISM.
what does it really matter, in the definition of Fascism - whether at any given point - it is the "STATE" that is the "ruling partner using private corporations to extend its power" ..OR vice versa - PRIVATE corporations having BOUGHT "the state to enhance THEIR" interests?
BOTH WAYS - they still oppress people and gather resources and wealth and power unto a FEW PRIVATE HANDS - who are merely sitting in different sides of the room: "state" - and "private corporation".
and in BOTH cases - they come FROM the SAME source - the PRIVATE corporatist ruling class.
and THAT is the essential principle beyind ron paul's "libertarianism". he is FAR from the common wealth of people in his principles.
"libertarianism" - his espoused view - is nothing more than a FANCY TERM to justify "freedom to exploit others without government regulation"...
of course - it is EFFECTIVE to blame "government intervention" for "corporate/government fascism" as he would say ....
but that is really a Straw Man, a Red Herring Argument. it is designed to DISTRACT people from the fact that Ron Paul's "libertarianism" is PURE and SIMPLE "freedom to exploit OTHERS and keep common resources UNTO MYSELF as much as possible" .
therefore - he , as a so-called "libertarian" but in reality is a PRIVATE CORPORATIST - is really a closet PREDATOR - who wants to be completely "unleashed" in his PREDATIONS. he and people like him.
he likes to appeal to the EASIEST sentiment among people:
their sense of "individual choice and freedom from regulation" ....
because he KNOWs that when left alone LIKE THAT - without PROTECTIONS from people like HIM..entire populations are at the mercy of HIS kind of economic exploitations...which is after all -- the foundation of POWER over others.
many things that he says are good - ANTIWAR being among them...if ONLY that were so EASILY detachable from HIS own "libertarian economics" principles - which are the bottom floor of these VERY SAME WARS that he despises because they ARE wars FOR PROFIT - exactly as "libertarians" LIKE HIM eventually arrive at for economic reasons.
but the things that he intones about "LIBERTY" are really like "liberty" in WORDS only - they have nothing to do with real economic liberty of people - that is:
liberty from WANT, from destitution, from poverty, from wars, from lack of housing and health care and education and because of being powerless by economic reasons, insecurity in existence.
he intones "free-sounding" rhetoric and arguments that are VERY attractive and even NOBLE...but they mask a DISDAIN for the powerless - of whom HE most definitely has NO intention of helping or enabling them to be "free" from the deprivations CAUSED by people LIKE HIMSELF through their economic manipulations because of their justifications for themselves (spoken as "by the people, for the people, of the people" in a fake Popularism) to be the "BIGGEST" sharks around....free to feed their ravenous appetites for wealth and power and acquisition into their private hands - what REALLY belongs to NO ONE or everyone.
he , imo, is a "liberty" talker. all he wants, bottom line, is simple:
MONEY and the power it brings. same as all the other "fascists" that he despises.
he is as "maverick" as John McCain ever was - which was NEVER, in reality.
I am convinced that if Ron Paul was cornered into answering what he thought of AYN RAND and HER elitist dogma of the "worthy" capitalist and ruling class "creators" and disdain for common humanity ...ron paul would have a challenge on how to AVOID being associated with the very same things that were unleashed by Ayn Rand's CULT of private wealth and power that are now demonstrated to be the SOURCE of so much evil, deprivation, exploitation and disasters because his own pretensions about "voicing the hopes of all" --which he names "libertarianism"
will be unmasked for what it is:
an ELITIST's none-too-clever masquerade of being "for the people , of the people, by the people" as he loves to quote from the USA constitution....itself designed by "libertarians" like Thomas jefferson, etc...
whose REAL interest was to accrue great private wealth while holding others in enslavement or some other way of servitude...which THEY TOO - named "liberty".
ron paul is not as "radical" or "maverick" or even ORIGINAL as he likes to make out of himself.
the reason he does not like "our war policies" is not really because of the harm they cause OTHERS elsewhere - but because it is "COSTLY" to HIS economics.
it is not about PEOPLE -but about Money and the power it brings.
THAT is the kind of "libertarian" ron paul REALLY IS. Ron Paul is really an AYN RAND ACCOLYTE - in disguise. he just doesn't say it out LOUD.
It would be very easy to claim that the following is an Imperial Apology. But it's not.
It would be great to put the USan Imperium in context. That is, a report that quantifies its extent relative to those of other countries. I think the point would be taken, and worldviews enhanced accordingly, if these phenomena are presented in context. Why aren't the media delivering the world view? We rarely get the world view. How progressive is this?
What the neo-cons said before 9-11 Incident:
1. In 1995, Central Command planning document said that "purpose of US engagement ... is to protect US vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure US/Allied access to Gulf oil".
2. In 1998 Philip D. Zelikow, with former CIA Director John Deutsch and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter, wrote in "Catastrophic Terrorism," which speculated that if the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center had succeeded in bringing about the collapse of the Twin Towers: "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. "
3. In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book "Grand Chess Board" wrote "it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat". He also said that key strategic plan for the US was to secure the Middle East-Central Asia gas and oil fields.
4. In 2000, The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which had Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney,as members, calling for transforming the military for global dominance said: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor".
What came to pass after 9-11 the Incident:
[4] it was the “catastrophic and catalyzing event–like a new Pearl Harbor”
[3] that created “the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat'.
[2] “Like Pearl Harbor, the event did divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States responded with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects.”
[1] US engaged its military in Iraq and Afghanistan ‘”to protect US vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure US/Allied access to Gulf oil”.
We are not going to leave Iraq or Afghanistan.
No......Philip Zelikow was named Director of The 9/11 Commission and he made sure that there were no witnesses called who had witnessed explosions in the lower levels of World Trade Center #7 and made no demands for the video tapes confiscated on the Pentagon Attack. To add insult, there was no investigations of the "Money Trail" and "The Mossad" who were in New Jersey, New York and Florida,living two blocks from the alleged terrorists.
When an assassination is planned by the "Power Elite", all security forces are conveniently removed....As you watch the videos of the Kennedy motorcade, you can see that the Secret Service Agents were protecting the vehicle behind the Kennedy vehicle....As you watch the video, the motorcycle officers are riding beside the vehicle behind the Kennedy vehicle.......Both the motorcycle escort and Secret Service would have been beside the Kennedy Vehicle and standing on the back of the vehicle.
So, if assassinations are planned for success with government support, so too are attacks against the United States......For 9/11,NORAD was rendered useless by U.S. Government Intervention and four planes were hijacked and never intercepted.
World Trade Center #7 was demolitioned with explosives! (Eyewitness reports of explosions in the lower levels and scientists found nano-thermite in the ashes.)
Because 200 members of the Mass Media are members of "The Council on Foreign Relations" and because almost all of Barack Obama's advisors are members of "The Council on Foreign Relations".........Because "The Council on Foreign Relations" has been the main policy making group for all Presidents since Richard Nixon and all of its Members believe in "The New World Order" being structured by the United States.........Killing a few million people means nothing to the "Power Elite". Destroying The American Economy so that "THEY" have all the Power and Money is what "The Power Elite" is all about...
When you have "Private Armies" that are willing to create "False Flag Attacks" to meet "The Goals" of "The Power Elite", "The Rule of Law" gets thrown out and the "Rule of The Power Elite" becomes final.....You now have "The New World Order" as determined by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
We won't leave until we run completely out of money and we get our asses kicked so hard we won't be able to sit down for decades to come. I can't wait until that day comes.
''Most Americans evidently remain convinced that "safe haven" there was the key to al-Qaeda's success, and that Afghanistan was the only place in which that organization could conceivably have planned 9/11,''
?
There were no fighter jets to intercept the passenger planes that went 'off course' - on 9/ll. They had been given other duties. Despite the warnings.
"Most Americans evidently remain convinced that "safe haven" there was the key to al-Qaeda's success, and that Afghanistan was the only place in which that organization could conceivably have planned 9/11,"
?
There were no fighter jets to intercept the passenger planes that went off-course that day.. They had been sent on other duties. Despite the warnings.
Perpetual war for perpetual profit