|
Collapse of the Empire?
by remembereringgiap
the end of the beginning of the end of the empire
finally, the iraquis are learning as the vietnamese did before them – that for all the firepower the armies of america are not invulnerable. that they can be destroyed & that they can be fought & there can be a victory against them
this reminds me of the only armies that really fought in any real sense the invading armies of germany – those of the soviet union. in the first instance they were frightened – genuinely frightened. this army had already devoured half of europe & they were practically, strategically & tactically in awe of this force
but when their first battles – battles the russian did not win militarily – they began to understand practically – that this army could be fought & a victory could be won against it & it was not so long after that they began their first victories. then victory after victory followed – with only a few pockets of fanatic nazis able to resist the force of the russian people
in iraq today – they are finding a similar truth. this massacring army. this army that happily hands out collective punishment to the iraquis. this army that murders its way north & south, east & west with the help of blairs batallions. this army that drops tonne & tonnes & tonnes of bombs on iraq cannot win. will not win
the armies of resistance do not need either zaqarwi or ben laden – they need their own experience – the experience of a rich & cultured people fighting against the barbaric battallions of the ‘coalition’ forces – which are american by any name
the iraquis are learning a lesson that in the battle of the flea – the larger force can be defeated. & it will be defeated. & i see a humiliating defeat for the americans. if not today, tommorrow & if not tommorrow then next day & certainly that day will come & it will mark the end of the beginning of the end of that empire because that empire like all others will fall
the decline & fall of the american empire is as certain to me today as was the victory of the tet offensive would be translated sooner or later into a real defeat of the invading american armies
still steel
Published on Thursday, November 11, 2004 by TomDispatch.com
Four Times Falluja Equals?
by Mark LeVine
As American forces penetrate ever deeper and more destructively into the city of Falluja, each of the major players in this violent drama is engaged in a complex, constantly shifting calculus involving ways of turning events to their advantage. Of the many possible outcomes to the battle of Falluja, the four which seem most plausible follow, starting with the one that might be viewed most positively by the Bush administration. In sum, they offer us a grim picture of how the window of success has closed on American strategists in Iraq. Even the “best” outcomes below (from the administration’s point of view) have lost the trappings of freedom and democracy that helped justify the invasion nineteen months ago.
The Hama Solution: In 1982, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad put down a potential nationwide revolt of religious activists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood by killing upwards of 20,000 people in the city of Hama, essentially flattening its central districts in the process. In an Iraqi version of the “Hama solution,” the Americans and their Iraqi allies would take Falluja relatively quickly — at whatever cost to its essential infrastructure — in the process killing the majority of the resistance fighters in the city along with uncounted civilians who were too poor, young, old or infirm to flee before the invasion. Falluja would then act as a terrifying example to other rebellious Iraqi cities. The end, however temporary, of Mutaqa al-Sadr’s Shia insurgency in the early fall increased the likelihood of success for such a move, freeing up as it did American troops from Najaf in the south and from the Shi’i slum of Sadr City in Baghdad. At the same time, the many month-long threat of a massive attack on Falluja seems to have created fracture lines in the resistance between indigenous groups seeking political solutions that might avoid mass civilian casualties and smaller groups of foreign jihadists, unbound by local ties and determined to fight to the death.
On the other hand, all those months of saber rattling evidently allowed many local fighters and jihadist leaders to leave the city before the invasion began, a troublesome development for American strategists and the interim government of Iyad Allawi as they seek to pacify the larger Sunni Triangle in time for announced elections in January. In the last week, after all, insurgents reoccupied the city center of Ramadi, attacked fiercely in Samarra, fought it out in Baghdad neighborhoods, and left authority in Mosul tottering, while American troops were occupied with the battle of Falluja — and these were just a few of the many indications that, no matter what happens in Falluja, the insurgency is anything but defeated.
Yet if enough resistance fighters are killed to reclaim Falluja and sap the force of the insurgency in other cities, American strategists can at least hope to be on their way to a limited pacification of Sunni Iraq. Sunni leaders might next be bought off or co-opted and enough followers, fighters, and civilians, killed elsewhere to quiet the country for the next several months. Iraq would then have its “successful” election, and the Bush Administration would breathe a huge sigh of relief. So would Prime Minister Allawi who, according to a senior Iraqi official with whom I’ve spoken in recent days, is still livid that the Americans bypassed him to negotiate an end to the siege of Najaf. (According to my source, the bandaged hand Allawi sported during his recent trip to New York came from “banging his hands on the wall” after leaning of a secret meeting between American Ambassador John Negroponte and Shiite rebel leaders.) In one fashion or another, in this scenario, “democracy” would mean an extension of the Allawi government via a limited and managed election.
The ongoing, seemingly ceaseless violence in the Palestinian Occupied Territories under Israeli occupation reminds us that pacifying an occupied population is an endless job. But if, as the Bush administration now hopes, the insurgency can simply be tamped down, when it resurfaces next spring it will be the problem of an elected Iraqi government. American troops, in the meanwhile, would largely be withdrawn to a dozen or more major bases lowering American casualties; yet they could be called back into action any time violence threatened to get out of hand. Iraq would then take its place beside Colombia, Israel, and Sri Lanka, to name only a few of the many countries plagued by ongoing but “manageable” political violence — while the United States would remain astride the second largest oil reserves in the world. This is today the best option available to the Bush administration.
The Jenin Scenario: If Falluja is largely subdued but low-level fighting continues for weeks or months in its back streets, chaos and anarchy might increase across the country, forcing a curtailment or postponement of the January elections, and yet the overall situation might not spin completely out of American control. The Allawi government would remain more or less in power in Baghdad and American troops could continue to occupy the country indefinitely (under the argument that the United States can’t leave Iraq in the midst of chaos). The insurgency would be slowly exhausted over a longer period of time, laying the groundwork for a post-independence system favorable to American interests.
Here, the example of the 2002 Israeli siege of the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin might prove the model for the present Falluja campaign. It stirred up incredible anger, violence, and chaos in Palestinian society and outrage internationally, but when the dust settled — as it usually does –Israel’s strategic position was actually stronger than before.
Even if the dust doesn’t settle quite as advantageously in Iraq, or settle at all, Bush Administration hawks could turn the ensuing low-level chaos to their immediate advantage by allowing it, or encouraging it to spread to Syria (near whose border the U.S. recently staged a bloody invasion of the Iraqi town of Tal Afar) or Iran (already in the sights of senior Administration officials, regardless of any nuclear deal its leaders may sign with the Europeans). In fact, it is well known that Israeli operatives have been working with Kurds in both border regions to gauge the feasibility of such a scenario. In the meantime, according to Iraqi officials I’ve spoken with, American oil companies are quietly exploring the 90% of Iraq where oil deposits have yet to be tapped, free of potentially embarrassing scrutiny by a media focused on urban violence rather than desert oil. American casualties would also remain limited; media attention modest; and so a Jenin scenario would be seen, under the circumstances, as a quiet but significant victory by the Bush administration.
The “British” Solution (or 1920 Revisited): If the invasion of Falluja backfires — if the fighting drags on and, for instance, there is evidence of large-scale civilian casualties, perhaps broadcast to the world by a dreaded al-Jazeera reporter via video phone — Iraqi public opinion might be inflamed to the point of sparking a more general Sunni or yet more significantly Sunni-Shi’i revolt. This actually happened in 1920 when occupying British troops tried to use massive force to pacify the country and the results were devastating for the occupiers (as well as the occupied); or if the resistance in Falluja proves more resilient or better armed than American military officials assume it to be and is capable of dragging out the fighting until a desperate compromise solution along the lines of the deal to end the Najaf siege becomes inevitable, a revolt might also be encouraged; or if the insurgents, with months to plan, left only a minimal force in Falluja to fight a delaying action against the Americans and their Iraqi allies and are able to conduct a larger, sustained insurgency across Sunni (and parts of Shiite) Iraq, as seems increasingly likely, the result could be the same.
Any one of these developments or any combination of them would destroy what is left of the credibility of the Americans and of the Interim Iraqi Government. If not contained, the present insurgency, facing overwhelming and relatively indiscriminate American power, could spark a more general revolt, joined by significant number of Shi’ites (whose leaders, unlike during the first siege of Falluja in April, have so far remained relatively quiet). It would capitalize on the intense anger felt by a country that has seen as many as 100,000 of its citizens killed in the last eighteen months. With the political costs of retreat almost incalculable, the Bush administration in turn might ratchet up the violence (as it did in Vietnam) before considering real withdrawal strategies, hoping that the prospect of tens of thousands of further deaths in the next year would lead Iraqis to accept some continued American military presence in the country and, most important, a continued hand in the management of the country’s petroleum resources.
The “French” Scenario: Any version of the “British” solution might, sooner or later, lead the Bush administration into the thickets of the even more unsettling “French” scenario. In this, a growing awareness of the human toll of the occupation, coupled with levels of political corruption that are already staggering would lend force to a desire to internationalize the next phase of Iraq’s transition to full sovereignty. (A former top Allawi aide, who recently escaped the country, summed up Iraqi despair on the issue of corruption in lamenting to me that “the new regime is the same as Saddam’s, just with different faces.”) The “French” scenario might involve the intercession of France, Germany, and Spain, joined by UN Secretary General Kofi Anan and supported by a resurgent worldwide anti-war movement aroused by the ongoing horrors of Iraq. With the insurgency still under way, pressure would be applied for a cease-fire coupled with an internationalization of the transition to sovereignty based on the complete failure of the United States and the Allawi government to stabilize the country. French President Chirac’s stated desire to build a counterweight to U.S. power and Kofi Anan’s rising displeasure with U.S. actions could encourage such a development, as could the resignation of the Sunni members of the interim government and a full-scale Sunni boycott of any future American-organized elections. While the United States and the British would likely veto any Security Council resolution to mandate such a move, the groundswell of support for it could lead to major changes in the management of the occupation in the lead-up to elections.
If all four outcomes described above are striking for what they reveal about the narrowing of the Bush Administration’s grand vision of a democratic and prosperous Iraq, the last one — a kind of final humiliation — would certainly be fiercely resisted by American officials and the Allawi government (nor would some factions of the insurgency be any too pleased by the possibility).
The wild card in the current crisis is the Iraqi people who, since the toppling of the Hussein regime, have more often than not remained horrified spectators while their country’s political landscape has been reshaped. This passivity, though understandable given the Iraqi experience over the previous two decades, has proved as disastrous for them and their country as the passivity of Palestinians was during the crucial early years of the Oslo peace process (which in actuality allowed Israel to increase significantly its West Bank and Gaza settlements, while Yasir Arafat cemented his autocratic and corrupt rule virtually cost-free).
Ayatollah Ali Sistani’s call for a massive nonviolent mobilization to end the siege of Najaf and the success of women’s groups in preventing a rollback of their social rights, both demonstrate that the Iraqi people can become active shapers of their own destiny. Were the Shiites to pour into the streets nationwide, as they did in Najaf in response to Sistani, the Iraqi situation would immediately take on a different look and the American occupation might find its days quickly numbered. But can Iraqi society challenge the violent calculus of American military planners and insurgents alike with a vision of a future free of occupation and autocracy, corruption and extremism? More than wishing the Iraqis well, the international community needs to get its hands dirty to ensure that they have a fighting chance.
Mark LeVine is professor of modern Middle Eastern history, culture, and Islamic studies at the University of California Irvine and author of the forthcoming books Why They Don’t Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil and Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine, 1880-1948, He is also the editor with Viggo Mortensen and Pilar Perez of Twilight of Empire: Responses to Occupation. He last spent time in Iraq in the early spring of this year
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 12 2004 21:38 utc | 22
Published on Friday, November 12, 2004 by the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
Victories Rooted in Barren Ground
The Forthcoming Election in Iraq Will Be as Hollow as the Latest US Triumph There
by Paul McGeough
There’s been much night-vision hype and a lot of huff and puff about this week’s US assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja. But perhaps a more accurate, if accidental, assessment was in the name given to the exercise by its planners: Phantom Fury.
The “fury” was evident in the pre-attack briefings for US troops. They were told they were “making history” … this was another Iwo Jima; it was Hue city revisited; they were required “to kick some butt!” Indeed, the only sentiment expressed by individual troops in their CNN sound bites was anger. But there were a few “phantoms”, too.
After months of claims that Falluja was a hornets’ nest of as many as 6000 insurgents, it seemed that most had packed their rocket-propelled grenades and left town when the Marines arrived. And as US forces entered the city, many of their supposed “allies” from the new US- and Australian-trained Iraqi security services had deserted rather than face the insurgents.
We had breathless accounts of US forces taking the Falluja hospital “without a shot being fired”; of them “thundering” into the city, then capturing a third of it; “much of the city seemed abandoned”; then the US was in control of 70 per cent of it; and on Wednesday, this anticlimax in the Los Angeles Times: “Finally, troops reached the Al Hadra al Muhammadia mosque. ‘This is the nerve center of the resistance – and we’re here,’ said Captain Theodore Bethea, Charlie Company commander. Inside, the troops found a weapons cache that included several rocket-propelled grenade launchers. AK-47 rifles … and materials for homemade bombs … Marine officials said four guerillas were killed in the attack on the mosque.”
Obviously, nobody was home.
In an avalanche of reports from media “embeds” with the US forces, the death toll among the insurgents is anywhere between 85 and 600 – which means that 5400 or more got away.
And after months of US insistence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born terrorist ring leader in Iraq, was hiding in the city and that was why his “safe houses” had to be bombed, various US officials admitted on the eve of the attack that Zarqawi had probably fled … if he had ever been there.
All of which means this US military exercise was as successful as the attack on Tora Bora in Afghanistan late in 2001 – back then US forces came down from the Afghan mountains claiming that they had killed hundreds of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, but perhaps three times as many got away – including Osama bin Laden.
None of this is to underestimate or ignore the atrocities carried out in the name of the insurgents. But it all raises serious questions about the US campaign in Iraq. Apart from the fact they are still attempting to “liberate” swathes of the country 20 months after invading, the outcome of the assault on Falluja undermines the Americans’ implicit belief that legitimacy comes from the barrel of a gun.
It’s only weeks since the US claimed to have routed the insurgents in Samarra, another Sunni-dominated city north of Baghdad. Special military flights flew reporters into Samarra for a briefing by Major-General John Batiste: “Anti-Iraqi forces have been defeated and this city has been returned to the people.” And, it seems, the insurgents.
In what appeared to be a campaign of attacks everywhere in Iraq – except Falluja – this week, up to 50 people died and as many again were injured in coordinated strikes in Samarra. It’s not unreasonable to ask how many of the 5400 or more insurgents who might have escaped from Falluja are hunkering down in Samarra. Or in Ramadi where 20 marines were injured in a suicide bomb attack; or in bombings elsewhere that took dozens of Iraqi lives as insurgents went on the rampage.
The Americans invested months in planning this attack. They brought in 10,000 of their own forces and as many as 2000 more Iraqis, but still they were unable to stop the insurgents leaving Falluja in their thousands. And for all their bluster and professed confidence in the new Iraqi forces, it is apparent again that while the insurgency has infiltrated the Iraqi security agencies, Iraqi forces have been unable or unwilling to infiltrate the ranks of the insurgency or to stand and fight them.
Anne Garrels, a US National Public Radio reporter with the Marines at Falluja, told her US radio audience that about two-thirds of the 500 “elite” Iraqi troops who were to accompany the Marines into Falluja had deserted.
There will be much American chest-beating over the retaking of Falluja, especially after the failure of their April siege of the city. But as the insurgency is demonstrating with the havoc it caused elsewhere in Iraq this week, this US success is likely to have the same negligible impact on the insurgency as the December capture of Saddam Hussein and the appointment of Iyad Allawi’s puppet regime.
As the attack on Falluja was getting under way, Slate commentator Fred Kaplan warned that the insurgents would live to fight another day: “Falluja isn’t Masada or the Alamo, some last-ditch outpost where the rebels whoop their final battle cry, rally for one more round of resistance, then pass into history when their last rifleman falls.”
The US still looks at Iraq in conventional military terms, rather than as the guerilla war it has become. Whether it was Castro and Guevara in Cuba, Masoud in the Panjshir Valley or the Chechen or Vietnam conflict, a guerilla force does not have to “win” in order to win; it only has to duck and weave, to keep dancing and to concede territory when it has to while opening new fronts when it needs to, to create utter chaos.
This battle of Falluja will be written into Arab and Muslim poetry and propaganda, just as the April siege was. And it’s affecting – and infecting – Iraq’s political process. The only Sunni political party in the country’s appointed government is threatening to quit and Sunni lobby groups have stepped up their campaign for the 20 per cent-plus of Iraqis who are Sunnis to boycott the national polls which Washington insists must be held by the last week in January.
The American belief is that if Falluja can be pacified, elections can proceed.
But where does the road go after Falluja? George Bush has won domestic legitimacy by his re-election. But his “coalition of the willing” in Iraq is becoming less willing with as many as 14 of his partners pulling out, thinking about it or reducing their numbers; and democracy advocates are questioning the legitimacy of the proposed Iraqi elections in the face of an unseemly lobby attempt to lock in the result before a single vote is cast.
When Washington’s case for war against Iraq over weapons of mass destruction fell apart, it resorted to the urgent need for free, fair and competitive elections in what would be a democratic beachhead in the Middle East. But in The Washington Post this week, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Marina Ottaway, wrote: “Elections as they should be in a democracy are what the US promised … [but does it now want to convert the poll] into a referendum on a single list of candidates and thus send a message to all Middle East regimes that it agrees with them, that free elections are too risky for such a volatile corner of the world?”
A key aspect of the election is that instead of voting for individual MPs from which a government would be chosen, Iraqis will be asked to endorse pre-arranged “slates” of names which constitute an agreed power-sharing arrangement between those on the slate and the parties they represent.
Again all the force of the US embassy in Baghdad is up against the unmovable object of the intentions of the spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shiite majority, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. With Shiites claiming to represent as much as 65 per cent of the population they are determined to have a Shiite administration.
An obvious slate is the existing appointed regime of Iyad Allawi – or a variation thereof – which is being backed by the Americans. But there are growing fears that Allawi could end up in the losers’ corner, particularly if al-Sistani achieved his objective of preventing a Shiite split.
The two Shiite religious parties in interim government have clubbed together, but they are up against an unlikely alliance of Ahmad Chalabi, the disgraced former Pentagon favorite as leader of liberated Iraq, and Moqtada Al-Sadr, the firebrand militia leader who has spent much of the last year at war with the Americans but who now claims to have joined the political process. Obviously, theirs would be an anti-US ticket.
Despite al-Sistani’s claims to be above the political process, the unelected mullah has intervened whenever he believes necessary and usually with dramatic effect, to protect Shiite interests. His latest intervention is the establishment of his personal commission to broker deals between the different Shiite political parties and personalities to ensure they do present a single Shiite slate for Shiites to endorse.
Allawi is a secular Shiite whose popular support, along with that of his appointed administration, is falling. His Iraqi National Accord Party is distrusted by many Shiites because it includes many Sunnis who joined Allawi while in exile during Saddam’s regime.
Allawi’s problem as he faces a poll that many Sunnis will boycott, is that he does not have a strong party of his own or one that might join him to draw substantial Shiite backing.
His defeat would be a blow for Washington. But as Ottaway put it in the Post: “The formation of a government dominated by religious parties would be a humiliation for the Bush Administration, a sign that, again, the reality of Iraq has trumped American plans. By trying to absorb the Shiite parties into a monster coalition, the US hopes to dilute their influence.”
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 12 2004 21:39 utc | 23
I’m no expert on empire, but it seems that two things occur: collapse from within and collapse from without.
Again, Emmanuel Todd’s book, After the Empire was the book that made the greatest impression on me last year.
I was glad to see that James Wolcott confirmed my view that it was one of the most important books released in the U.S. recently.
America itself no longer promotes universal human insights. It thumps its exceptionalism everywhere it stomps. It is perceived as the overdog unchained.
An entire chapter in Emmanuel Todd’s After the Empire is devoted to America’s retreat from universalism. “One of the essential forces of empires, a principle behind both their dynamism and stability, is universalism, the capacity to treat all men and peoples as equals.”
Instead, the US has curled up into an angry ball at home while lashing out at much of the world.
“it pretends to incarnate an exclusive human ideal, to know all the secrets of economic success, and to produce the only movies worth watching. The recent boasting about its presumed social and cultural hegemony, the progress of its ever expanding narcissism, is only one of the many signs of the dramatic decline of America’s real economic and military power and of its universalism most of all.”
At what point will corporate chieftains in the US, particularly those who rely heavily on exports, going to realize and acknowledge that Bushism is bad for business?
And not just abroad but domestically in the long run? In the Rise of the Creative Class, Richard Florida convincingly argues and documents that the ingredients for future prosperity and well-being are Technology, Talent, and Tolerance. Under the last T, he emphasizes diversity, sexual as well as ethnic. A gay-friendly community is a creative community and a creative community is a forward-thinking, open, freer, technologically cutting-edge community. “[A] place that welcomes the gay community welcomes all kinds of people,” Florida writes. As a reporter friend of Florida says, “Where gay households abound, geeks follow.”
Does that sound like the kind of America that reelected Bush last week? A country open to science, skepticism, dissent, tolerance, liberal values, and sexual diversity? The evangelical ascendence in America is yet another indicator of decline and sullen pouting. Unable to tell the world what to do, it’s going to tell other Americans what to do, how to live, and how to get right with God.
No wonder Richard Florida, whose Rise of the Creative Class shone with such optimism, is bringing out a book in 2005 called Flight of the Creative Class: Why America Is Losing the Competition for Talent. If America is losing that competition, it’s the rest of the world that’s benefitting, hastening the erosion of the American empire.
Emmanuel Todd interview
America’s destabilizing effect on the world increases so much more quickly than one could imagine! It is as if the Bush Administration put their foot down on the accelerator of the forces of extreme decline. The economic decomposition was already perceptible when I wrote my book, with the Enron business, for example. But not, on the other hand, the deterioration of the American diplomatic system. However, one sees it happening, with the falling away of Germany and Turkey, the recombining of the Franco-German partnership and the rapprochement with Moscow. We still live in the myth of American, but it no longer even has the means to retaliate economically against France, Germany or Turkey!
Even conservatives are saying, as has been noted here before, that
The American Century is Over.
…and since irrationality is all the rage, and faith-based visions rule in America these days, I’m constantly reminded of the prophecy of the Hopi Elders, since it coincides (but was seemingly created independently of) the apocalyptic Christian one. The Hopis, on the other hand, always leave the possibility for change, however, unlike the determinism of the Christian apocalyptics.
Also here: The message from Chief Dan Evehema
Interesting when rational and irrational voices say somewhat the same things.
Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 13 2004 16:15 utc | 51
RGiap: Frankly, I’ve no idea what makes you believe I may have the faintest belief that America is invincible. It’s a matter of decades, and may even be a matter of years, imho. I was under the impression that maybe the only consistant point through all my posts was that the US power will fade and that the downfall of capitalism will happen. How and if mankind will survive may well depend on how fast the latter happens – though it’s obviously not the only factor.
Then, I’m a reader of Rifkin and Georgescu-Roegen, so it’s no wonder that I think such a system as the neo-liberal ultra-capitalist, which basically works on a basis of expanding chaos and mess throughout the planet, can only produce a complete meltdown of mankind in a not-too-long period.
The ninth book deals with the evolutions of societies, explains how to foresee their fall.
And clearly, for me, the bottom line is that the Empire will fall, and its social-economic-political system with it, pretty soon, for one obvious reason: these guys offer no vision of the future, at the end of the day, not even Bush the possible fundie crank. They can only say “get rich, greed is good” (this is basically the point Todd seems to make). You don’t build a civilization on it, and therefore you can only last for a couple of generations before people just exhaust the resources or are completely bored with it and can’t be bothered to actually defend it anymore. Egypt’s pyaramids could probably suffer a nuclear explosion and still stand, but the WTC could be brought down with friggin jetliners; coupled with people living in trailers and cardboard houses in tornado and hurricane areas, I think it tells a lot about how long they plan and what long-term represents for this kind of society.
I’m also reminded of a conversation I had with an economist and Economics teacher I sometimes work with, just before the Iraq invasion. The guy is quite the believer when it comes to free-trade, capitalist system, market rules above all and the like, clearly centre-right if not mere right-wing, and still told me that the coming war, according to his own analysis, was the last gasp of a waning empire, and after that it would be over.
Of course I’m also with slothrop, in that I’d like to see a global anger about the wealthy elites. At least, contrary to what happen in the last stages of WWI, if there’s a massive rebellion and uprising in some major country/ies, people in the other main powers will see it and may act accordingly.
Some European elites are a bit freaked out because, like Soros, they see the writing on the wall and that the party is close to being over. That said, I’ve been said that many people in the big business are still overjoyed that Bush won, and not only in US big Biz. And of course I don’t think anyone should have more pity for the European wealthy elites than for the American ones (or Japanese ones, or the rest of the greedy lot looting 3rd world).
Oh, and one last point about Todd and Wolcott’s article: indeed, if you’re the top dog, if you really are the most powerful and advanced power, if you’re ahead of everyone else, you don’t need to state it, to beat other people with it, arrogantly. You don’t need it because you simply are it, and no one needs to be told so because it’s up there, clear for all to see.
And I also totally agree with Florida; in fact, Europe is still so unsure of its potential and of the fading US influence that they’re still acting like clueless idiots, otherwise they’ll have an aggressive policy of attracting intellectuals and scientists right now, to stop the brain drain from Eurasia to US, then make sure the Europeans and Asians expats would come back, then push for the last nail in the coffin creating a reverse braind drain. The US is still lucky that the EU has no serious leader with a long-term political vision, just fools who crave for local (read: national) power either by being pro- or anti- Bush. Most people have really no idea how fast and how far things would go if UK, Germany, France of EU Commission were, for once, led by someone who would be devoted to strengthening the EU as a whole instead of dealing with some particular and national interests.
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Nov 13 2004 17:49 utc | 53
OT – somewhat – i am obsessed with the vote. sorry length.
At link, ref. to a paper (PDF) by the Cal-Tech MIT Voting Technology Project (also linked.)
When I see top class institutions being so sloppy, strange, inaccurate, and unobtrusively careful, I become convinced that monkey business is afoot.
Here is a summary of the findings, copied from the paper, with my comments.
1. A series of claims have been made in recent days alleging that discrepancies between exit poll results and the presidential vote in certain states provides evidence of malfeasance in those states. These claims seem to be concentrated on states using electronic voting systems.
..these claims seem is very vague and does not address the challenge; moreover I guess it is incorrect. In FL, at any rate, the suspicion seems to be focused on paper ballots read by optical scan. Concentrating on E-voting wakes up contra-conspiracists attitudes – everyone knows that people have been suspicious of Diebold, etc. However, the statement is acceptable if careful analysis follows. If one lays out how things are or were one need not address every nutty question, weird intuition, etc.
2. Exit polls predicted a significantly greater vote for Kerry nationwide than the official returns confirmed, but there is not any apparent systematic bias when we take this same analysis to the state level.
This is:
a) Clever obfuscation. Exit polls dont predict anything and are post hoc – they sample the result. The word predict makes people set up an association between pre-election polls and exit polls – quite different things. Generally speaking, in daily life, any prediction is dodgy and is often proven wrong. Exit polls cannot be proved wrong. They may have been improperly conducted or falsified, or present statistically rare cases, but those are other matters.
b) Reasoning which is cheating. Statistically speaking, the statement may be, and most likely is, true: it represents a common case. Differences in small samples (e.g. women shoppers buy more soap than men shoppers in different towns on one afternoon in 2004) may be small and insignificant, that is, within the bounds of randomness (gee, 3 more women than men bought soap! meaningless!), but when added up together, they become an impressive total, and create a significant difference, e.g. in every town sampled, women were bigger soap-buyers, ergo, there is a difference in F/M shopping behavior.
The point of examining the small(er) samples that made up the total is to explain how the final (large, interesting, etc.) difference came about. E.g. Particularly in the South, women bought more soap than men.
So, saying there was no difference at the state level is completely meaningless, and is just put forward to hammer in the idea of no difference. States are large enough to be felt as representative, and they are psychologically relevant. (In My State, etc…) People will tend to (or are supposed to) superficially conclude: no state difference = no difference.
c) Careful prose. The fact that exit polls showed a Kerry win is stated baldly, up front. No known facts are contradicted or denied, offering an appearance of impartiality. (Facts are just explained away in a unreal way..)
3. Analysis of deviations between the exit polls and the official returns show no particular patterns for states using electronic voting; nor does this analysis reveal any patterns for states using other forms of voting systems.
Skipping the technical details (this statement is not shored up or proven in the paper according to me, but that is not important), once again, that might very well be true. It could be the case that women buying more soap than men could not be related to state, county, type of store, type of soap, climate, or anything at all. However, there being no discernable patterns does not invalidate the overall effect (women buy more soap than men.)
Once again, the red flag of E-voting is mentioned…
What the statement communicates, at heart, is that deviations (never properly quantified..) appeared here and there, at the state level, but that the deviations could not be, were not shown to be, related to voting type/method. Again, that might be the case, but the analysis is then still incomplete. If voting method is not an important variable, what is? It might be urban vs. rural, or small vs. big places, or heavily Republican vs. other, or young population vs. old, etc.
It is curious that the analysis does not venture further.
4. We conclude that there is no evidence, based on exit polls, that electronic voting machines were used to steal the 2004 election for President Bush.
Too cute. Implied is : E-voting is not related to incongruent Bush Wins, as compared to other voting methods. The beauty of it is that the statement is most likely, as far as I can see, correct. E votes did not turn up significantly larger Bush advantages (? – no matter…) . That does not mean that illegitimate large Bush advantages did not appear.
It is like stating: There is no evidence that proves that the captain beats his wife everyday with a riding crop! Sollicited inference: as a riding crop is not used, the captain does not beat his wife everyday!
The twist is in the words 8-.. of the sentence, based on the exit polls. Exit polls in themselves are mute about voting procedure/method – they only tell how many people in a sample stated they voted for X or Y. Statistical analysis might show bias (e.g. small states show a larger difference between stated post hoc votes in sample and real total votes in population; states that used X voting method show more deviation, etc..) or might not. If no bias appears, no conclusion can be drawn.
Besides that, on the ground, in the real world, lack of fit between exit polls and real total results never appears – it is a theoretical possibility only. If an exit poll is properly conducted, it will be accurate, and no bias will appear. How to carry out exit polls, with minimal fuss and costs, has been known for 30 years at least.
Finally, no statistical analysis could ever prove (though it might strongly indicate this or that – statistical ‘proof’ is accepted in law courts in CH to reveal corporate hanky-panky) that electronic machines stole an election. The proof of that could only come from facts on the ground, e.g. wanky code, hackers, corrupted officials sweating over PCs, etc.
The election was stolen … The official (at one remove) reaction is very telling. The report is written, in part, in code. The people who wrote it know that other professionals will scoff and laugh or cry and swear, but the prudence of the language and formulation spells — KEEP OFF. It signals: this is the new unreal reality… our jobs and kids food is at stake…
OutBeltway
Posted by: Blackie | Nov 13 2004 21:40 utc | 59
Let us assume, that the fall of empire is inevitable, at least because of the unwillingness of foreign creditors to prop up the budget deficits. We have to discuss what will happen during the post-collapse phase.
I see here the danger of the rise of a revengist ideology comparable to the Weimar Republic’s Dolchstosslegende. The US Army has not lost one single battle in Iraq; the Kaiserarmee capitulated on foreign territory. But no money means no expensive high-tech army.
Would Bush have to give up Iraq because of a hole in the budget? If that’s the case, would he admit that the tax cuts were an immense part of the problem? Well, did Bush ever admit making a mistake?
In such a situation the ruler denies everything and his helpful advisors usualy find a scapegoat to throw to the angry masses. Historically, this were Jews, the ethnic group with the weakest ability to defend itself.
From the data that I have seen, 80% of bond buyers/budget creditors are foreign. When they decide that such an investment is not safe because of the unwillingness of the Bush Admin to control deficits, they will stop buying cheap and demand a risk premium.
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says the growing U.S. budget deficit could destabilize the economy. … record budget and current account gaps.
“If you get to a point of fairly significant long-term structural budget deficits, it begins to impact on the level of long-term interest rates,” Greenspan told the House Budget Committee on Sept. 8. That means the government must pay higher rates to borrow money, leading to even higher deficits, he said.
“If you get into that sort of debt maelstrom, it is a very difficult issue to get out of,” he said.
In fact, the blame game is already being played with regard to different problems. You have the self-described ‘ultra-conservative political commentator’ Adam Yoshida agitating:
Even I didn’t think that the party of treason would go this far. … This is an evil, calculated, and pernicious attempt to steal this election.
If the market goes down tomorrow: blame the Democrats.
If the dollar plunges: blame the Democrats.
Whatever comes from now on, the responsibility lies in the hands of the Democrats. … The blood that is shed be upon them. … The Democrats, it seems, hate democracy. … The Democrats must pay a political price for their sins. …. We need to crucify these lunatics for what they’re trying.
He is talking here in the context of a recount of the Ohio votes, but it is not the context, it’s the choice of words that is important. These descriptions tend to stick around and resurface in another situation. (like ” ‘They’ do it again.”)
You had a year ago pseudo-economist Donald Luskin blaming the internationalist Jewish financier pre-emptively:
“Soros believes that if he can force the market down, he will have an effect in the real world,” Luskin says. “If it happens on Oct. 31, people might go into the voting booth with fear in their hearts.”
You can find the reason why this blame game article was written right in the first sentence:
Will George Soros Panic the Market? The idea was floated first by former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, now the chairman of Citigroup. Unless Congress scales back the Bush tax cuts, he argues in a new study, U.S. government budget deficits could lead to a crisis of confidence in the dollar and the stock market and potentially staggering losses for investors.
As you can clearly read, Rubin warns that the Bush deficits could cause a financial crisis. That is the information that the article tries to deform. They formulate this at first as if Rubin warned of a Soros conspiracy. He clearly did not.
To conservative economist Bruce Bartlett, Rubin was “laying the groundwork for a political assault on President George W. Bush over his budget policies, hope[ing] to give the Democratic presidential candidate an issue to run on that could propel him into the White House.”
Here the spin goes into the the opposite direction, it’s Rubin who is preparing a political stab-in-the-back operation. Of course, a ‘conservative economist’ is a code word for a ‘respected economist’ (as opposed to a ‘political hack’).
The overall problem is that people who should be made responsible will try to shoot the messenger of bad news. According to their logic, responsible people who are trying to warn us all, are the perpetrators:
Rubin today could be trying to talk the market down.
To sum this up, a dollar decline combined with a budget crisis can defeat the udefeated US Army in Iraq. The ‘pro-military’ conservatives will look for a scapegoat, because a ‘pro-military’ President can not be blamed. Obviously, they will ask themselves who wanted the US Army to be defeated ( cui bono?) and will find a handy answer: the ‘anti-military’ left and anti-Bush foreigners.
Posted by: MarcinGomulka | Nov 14 2004 1:32 utc | 64
From sic transit gloria USA link (Iraq thread 3:20)
From “Why Iraq will end as Vietnam Did” by Martin Creveld on Moshe Dayan’s
trip to Vietnam, in part:
The way he saw it, the problem was intelligence. “According to Norton’s (commanding officer, 1st Air Cavalry) information, there was a Viet Cong division in this highland area. It was not concentrated in a single base but split into several battalions, each about 350 men strong. It was Norton’s plan to land a battalion… in the Vietcong divisional area and then, in accordance with the developments of the battle, to rush in additional ‘reaction troops’ to reinforce, seal off, and carry out flank attacks. All this was fine, except for one small item missing in the plan: the exact location of the Viet Cong battalions was not known. Air photos and air reconnaissance had failed to pick out their encampments, entrenched, bunkered and camouflaged with the jungle vegetation. The US intelligence sources were largely technical—air photos and decoded radio intercepts, for Viet Cong units from battalion strength and up used transmitters. Only scanty information could be gleaned from POWs. Many of the latter spat in the Americans’ face and swore to die rather than talk.”
Contrary to what had been written about the enormous logistical requirements of the US troops—from iced beer to go-go girls—he was impressed by the Spartan nature of the arrangements. The Americans were prepared to improvise at a moment’s notice; throw a flack jacket into the helicopter, hop in, and off you go hunting VC. The entire Division was “a huge force, fast and efficient. It used its weapons—including artillery support and tactical and strategic air support—very effectively indeed”; in Dayan’s view, it was as superior to other forces as the German tanks had been to their enemies at the beginning of World War II. “[Its] battle procedures operated like an assembly belt. First came the shelling of the landing zones by ground artillery. Then came aerial bombardment. And the landings themselves were covered by ‘gunships’, the accompanying, close-support, heli-borne, units firing their rockets and machine guns almost at our feet”. It was an amazing operation, “but where was the war? It was like watching military maneuvers—with only one side”. “Where were the Viet Cong? And where was the battle? The Viet Cong were there, a few hundred yards away. And the battle came half an hour later when the company which had landed 300 yards to our south ran into an ambush after it had started moving off”. Within minutes the company was shot to pieces, suffering 25 dead and some 50 wounded including its commander. Calling in their firepower, 1st Cavalry gave pursuit. Meeting resistance they would radio for the B-52s bombers; to what effect, was not clear.
…………………………….
This article (extensive), while reiterrating most of what I’ve posted lately (in probably greater detail), the above passages particularly caught my attention
for a couple of reasons. First, the above scenario meshes with my own experience perfectly, and so would enable me to generalize this tactic on part of the NVA was (as I have suspected) in widespread use as one of their most successful tactics — and would only add that these ambushes most always were executed in very close proximity, say 12 to 20 feet from the target (US), thus prohibiting artillary/air strike retaliation. And this would also provide time for the main body force the time to exit the area.
Secondly, the after-the-fact bombardment of the area, while non-functional in tactical terms, can only be seen as some kind of fury leveled out as punishment to any civilians residing in the area — now apparently seen as enemy, simply re-defined by proximity.
This in my experience, is the cusp on which Geneva is crossed, when anger at the inability to achieve the desired result, becomes a raging epidemic of bad faith, deception, and denial, resulting in ever greater violations — even becoming tacititly defined with euphismisms in procedure and policy.
And so now in Fallugah, under the ever increasing strain of perpetual failure, US actions are clearly going over the line in ever increasing magnatude, denial of food&water to refugees, refusal of and occupation of medical facilities, detention and refusal of escape for “military age males”, destruction of religious sites, and now significantly, the systematic destruction of block after block of peoples homes (as a manner of clearing the area), and the good old free fire zone license to kill anybody.
Under these conditions, it would seem impossible, for any person, place, or thing to exist as anything BUT the enemy — and fit only for destruction.
Posted by: anna missed | Nov 14 2004 2:25 utc | 66
Imperialism is the policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial control or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.
Imperialists normally hold the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive good, combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to imperial power. However, imperialism has often been considered to be an exploitive evil:
Marxists, and also many non-Marxists from the left, use the term imperialism as Lenin defined it: “the highest stage of capitalism”, specifically the era in which monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing the empires to compete amongst themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world. This control may take the form of geopolitical machinations, military adventures, or financial maneuvers. Globalisation and the practices of the World Bank, for example, frequently are said to serve imperialist interests. Although the classical cases of imperialist powers are the richest capitalist countries of the First World, there are also many people, including some Marxists, who believe that the Soviet Union eventually became social-imperialist—socialist in words but imperialist in deeds— using its power and influence to dominate the East Bloc and various other countries. China, India, and other large countries with regional influence are sometimes charged with imperialism as well.
Contents [showhide]
1 Imperialism as a philosophy
2 Etymology
3 See also
4 External link
[edit]
Imperialism as a philosophy
Many countries these days that are accused of imperialistic practices do not actually embrace imperialism as a philosopy as many in the British Empire did. Here is an edited version of the viewpoint of a subject of the British Empire. (anyone know the original source?) Wherever Empire has extended its borders, there misery and oppression, anarchy and destitution, superstition and bigotry, have tended to disappear, and have been replaced by peace, justice, prosperity, humanity and freedom of thought, speech and action. Empire can only be achieved or maintained provided it has a moral basis. It must give people what they cannot otherwise or elsewhere enjoy; not merely justice, order, or material prosperity, but the sense of partnership in a great idea. The true imperialist has a certain power that makes him master of the world. The true imperialist pursues his purpose with the industry and steadfastness that comes from strong conviction and deep sense of moral responsibility. He is never at a loss for an effective moral attitude. As the great champion of freedom and independence, he conquers the world.
[edit]
Etymology
The term imperialism was a new word in the mid-19th century. According to the OED, it dates back to 1858, to describe Pax Britannica. However its intellectual roots can certainly be traced as far back as Dante, who in his Monarchia depicted a world with a single political focus and governed by rationalism. Dante was very influential on John Dee, who coined the term British Empire in the late 16th century. Dee was instrumental in creating the intellectual and scientific environment whereby English seafarers such as Humphrey Gilbert, Martin Frobisher and Walter Raleigh could set the groundwork for a maritime empire.
According to the OED, in 19th century England, imperialism, was generally used only to describe English policies. However, soon after the invention of the term, imperialism was used in retrospect about the policies of the Roman Empire.
In the 20th century, the term has been used to describe the policies of both the Soviet Union and the United States, although these differed greatly from each other and from 19th-century imperialism. Furthermore, the term has been expanded to apply, in general, to any historical instance of the aggrandizement of a greater power at the expense of a lesser power.
Since the end of World War II and particularly following the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellite states, claims of imperialism have almost exclusively been levelled at the sole-remaining superpower, the United States.
wikipedia
but oed or concice oxford is clear, universalis 8,9, 10 also
still steel
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 14 2004 15:32 utc | 76
American Empire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For other uses, see American Empire (disambiguation)
American Empire is an informal, emotionally charged term that is used to collectively describe the United States’ influence and trends toward political expansion beyond the bounds of continental North America. It is sometimes cited as being a natural ideologically based extension of the expansive American theme of ‘Manifest Destiny’.
Contents [showhide]
1 Expansion
1.1 Contemporary use of the term
2 Books
3 See also
[edit]
Expansion
Unlike many other powerful western nations, the United States had historically not been a country that has participated in traditional imperialist expansion or conquests. This changed following the Spanish American War, which was partially provoked by American politicians and businessmen, like William Randolph Hearst, interested in European-style expansionism. After the war, the defeated Kingdom of Spain agreed to cede most of her colonial possessions to the control of the United States.
The following areas have at one time or another been part of a sort of “American Empire,” that is to say colonies that were annexed to the United States, yet not granted statehood or self-rule.
Many of America’s former colonies have since become independent countries, states of the American union, or self-governing commonwealths. However despite the fact that these countries are legally independent the US has often intervened military or otherwise influenced their domestic affairs. Examples for military intervention are the US invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 or the invasion of Panama in 1989. An example for non-military forms of intervention in the former colonies are the numerous assassination attempts on Fidel Castro or the CIA-supported Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961.
The US also remains the main trading partner of both the Dominican Republic and the Philippines.
* Alaska (1867-1959) (now a state of the US)
* American Samoa (1900-)
* Cuba (1899-1909) (now independent)
* Dominican Republic (1916-1922) (now independent)
* Guam (1898-)
* Hawaii (1899-1959) (now a state of the US)
* Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (1944-1990) (now 3 independent states Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau and one commonwealth Northern Mariana Islands)
* Panama Canal Zone (1903-1979) (now part of Panama)
* Philippines (1898-1946) (now independent)
* Puerto Rico (1898-1952) (now a commonwealth)
* U.S. Virgin Islands (1917-)
* Okinawa (1945-1972) under US military control
There is also the odd case of Liberia, a nation founded in part by American slaves who were returned to Africa.
[edit]
Contemporary use of the term
Today, what many consider to be the “American Empire” does not fit historical definitions of imperialism and colonialism, but the United States influence takes on different and discreet forms. America’s military presence by itself is breathtaking and influential. According to researchers [1] (http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue29/Vol2Issue29Ferguson.html), around the world, the United States maintains 750 military bases or installations staffed by American military personnel in roughly 130 countries. The economic influence of American corporations is also substantial which strongly contributes to the growing Americanisation of many countries. It has been suggested that America has acheived the status of world hegemon; defined as a State existing as a superpower in a unipolar geopolitical environment whence it can dictate international law. Put another way, the United States’ power is such that it can act unilaterally without fear of reprisal due to the prevalence of its military forces in any relevant theater of operations.
The term “American Empire” is today often mostly used as derogatory expression to personify America’s military and cultural presence in nations around the world.
At the same time, many statesmen, scholars, and historians within the United States insist that America “is” an empire in the sense that the country holds tremendous power over the world, comparable to other great empires of history. Many thus argue that the United States should thus not shy away from using this power as a way of maintaining order, peace, and safety for both America and the world at large. This is ideology is exemplified by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, which became influential in the 2003 decision to invade Iraq. As stated in PNAC’s principles:
We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. [2] (http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm)
While supporters cite such ideology as one with motivations of global peace and stability, many in opposition view it as harmful to diversity, and reject the notion of a single dominating superpower in order to maintain “balance”, “equality”, “mutual respect”, and “harmony” among all nations around the world. Another criticism is that recent history has shown that despite US claims to the contrary US foreign policy has much more often brought war and conflict than peace.
Willaim Blum wrote in his book Killing Hope – US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II (http://www.killinghope.org) that “From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.”
[edit]
Books
There has been much literature in recent years about notions of the “rise of the American Empire.” American Empire is a book by Andrew J. Bacevich that says the United States started to act like an Empire after the end of the Cold War.
In the book Empire by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, the USA is seen as central for the development and constitution of a new global regime of power and sovereignty, termed empire by Hardt and Negri. The book builds on neomarxist, postcolonial, postmodern ideas and globalization theories. Because the empire of Hardt and Negri is decentralized and global, not the rule of one sovereign state over another, it should not be equated with the American Empire described in this article.
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 14 2004 15:55 utc | 80
Falluja and the Erosion of American Power
……… by Mike Whitney November 14, 2004
Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
“and what will their faces tell them
when they look in the mirror
when they look on their dressers
and see the pieces of metal they were given
for killing us in our own homes, in own cities, in our own mosques and churches,
what will their eyes say,
what will they say when their twisted lies are uncovered,
when the rest of the world speaks of their massacres of women and children, of old men,
of bombing hospitals,
what will they do when they see the smirking face of their presidents,
their senators, their leaders
who have allowed them to do this,
have ordered them to do this”….
Excerpt; This Night in Falluja by Sam Hamod
“The assault on Fallujah will resonate across generations as an atrocity. Despite the torrent of lies and misinformation, the truth will emerge. If the American military pursues its aims to the murderous end, the name of the Iraqi city will take its place alongside Guernica, My Lai and other symbols of imperialist barbarism.” World Socialist Web Site editorial, nov 9, 2004
There’s a true story circulating through the Arab world that has dwarfed the many other horrors now taking place in Falluja. It’s the tale of a nine year old boy who was wounded by shrapnel in the stomach when his house was hit by an errant bomb. Over the next ten hours his father Mohammed Abboud watched his son bleed to death in his living room because he was unable to venture out to go to the hospital. After the American bombing ceased, Abboud was forced to bury his son in his own garden.
The story of Abboud is particularly poignant because it takes one small event, one tiny part of the collective suffering, and crystallizes the entire Iraq conflict. If American’s want to understand why we will lose this war; they must understand Abboud’s story. It explains why Iraqis will never accept the occupation and why anyone with even a drop of patriotic blood has already joined the resistance. The same would be true in America if the situation was reversed.
The momentum for the siege of Falluja has been building for months. The entire rightward-tilting punditocracy has elicited a feverish appeal to “bring down God’s wrath on the infidels”. Krauthammer, Will, Safire and the rest of their raving cadres have laid down the gauntlet for Bush and Co. to flatten Falluja and make an example of the resistance. Ralph Peters of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post summarized this war mongering sentiment the best. He said the mission should be “to burn out the plague of fanaticism and prove to Iraq’s people that the forces of terror will not be allowed to enslave them. We need to demonstrate that the United States military cannot be deterred or defeated. If that means widespread destruction, we must accept the price.” Peter’s enthusiasm for retaliation in Falluja mirrors much of what has appeared in America’s editorial pages across the country.
Undoubtedly, the Bush team, led by Donald Rumsfeld, needs little encouragement. They’d already decided that the only way to celebrate their newly stolen election was to raze Falluja to the ground and eliminate anyone who stands in their way. The full force of the American military machine is being brought to bear on a civilian enclave just east of Baghdad. The results of the misadventure are already apparent.
Despite the sketchy reports emerging from Falluja (mostly filtered through a “sympathetic” American lens) we can still sort out a picture of unfolding horror. Pepe Escobar in Asia Times online, tells of “Terrified Fallujans calling Baghdad to tell of A-10 jets raining cluster bombs on the city’s streets….there is no possible way to estimate how many civilians are dead, blown up, burned or injured, although al-Jumaili tells of “scores of injured civilians”. A brand-new clinic funded by a Saudi Islamic relief non-governmental agency was bombed by the Americans during the weekend, as well as a medical dispensary in the city center: this was apparently the last place where anybody could get any medical attention. (“Satan Hides in a Hospital” Pepe Escobar, Asia Times Online, Nov. 11, 2004)
Fadhil Badrani, a reporter for the BBC World Service, writes that “a lot of the mosques have also been bombed. For the first time in Fallujah, a city of 150 mosques, I did not hear a single call to prayer this morning.” (US military has not denied the intentional bombing of mosques.)
The pretext for the siege continues to be the war on terror and, in particular, pursuit of the elusive Abu Musab al Zarqawi. In fact, the Defense Dept. knows that Zarqawi is not in Falluja, but they continue to use the cloak of terrorism to conceal their broader objective; to pacify the local population. The Fallujah Shura Council, (the coalition of the city’s clerics) said: “The people of Fallujah assure you that this person (Zaqawi), if he exists, is not in Fallujah… and we have no links to any groups supporting such inhuman behavior. We appeal to you to urge the UN (to prevent) the new massacre which the Americans and the puppet government are planning to start soon in Fallujah.”
This assurance hasn’t stopped the public relations team at the Pentagon from invoking the terror phantom to disguise their aggression. The war on terror is the last flimsy fig leaf masking the widespread populist uprising that has grown up in reaction to the occupation. The American people are still unaware that the vast majority of Iraqis now want the US to leave. The media can be expected to perpetuate this illusion.
The Defense Dept pretends not to know the exact makeup of the resistance, but this too is misleading. The “Iraqi insurgency” is mainly comprised of the 400,000 soldiers who Rumsfeld sent home (with their weapons) after the fall of Baghdad. American’s would be enraged to know that their sons and daughters are being killed by the very same conscripts who were willing to work for the occupation before they were dismissed. Pepe Escobar reports these same soldiers, “are operating with small mobile units of five or six or a maximum of 20 fighters, changing positions all the time. As a counter-measure, American snipers are trying to control the rooftops. The mujahideen are trying to attract as many American troops to the city center as possible so they can unleash what seems to be hundreds of coordinated car bombs and improvised explosive devices.”
Escobar’s report should concern every American. It illustrates that the conflict has entered a new phase; guerilla warfare. He confirms that the mujahideen have a clear idea of what they are doing and how to succeed. He states: “They have been preparing for this onslaught for months. And they do have a battle plan – as it was relayed to Asia Times Online by sources in Baghdad. Former or retired Iraqi army officials have always been serious students of Viet Minh tactics and Che Guevara’s theory of the guerrilla foco (center of guerrilla operations). Now they are applying this to urban warfare. (Satan hides in a Hospital Pepe Escobar) Viet Minh tactics? Che Guevara’s theory of guerilla foco? Most American’s still believe the insurgency is a mix of foreign terrorists, ex-Ba’athists and “dead-enders”. Escobar paints a grim picture of skilled professionals prepared to use the classic techniques of guerilla warfare to disrupt the occupation. His description is reminiscent of conditions that existed in the Vietnam War. It’s no wonder the DOD would rather downplay their knowledge of the insurgency and how it operates.
The Elections
The prevailing theory that Falluja must be battered into submission so that free elections can go forward is one of the bizarre twists in the current situation. Iraqi clerics as well as most of the Sunni Iraqis have already withdrawn their support for the upcoming elections because of the renewed hostilities. Harith al-Dhari, secretary general of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, says the scheduled January election would be held “over the corpses of those killed in Fallujah and the blood of the wounded”, and has called on all Iraqis to boycott it.(Al Jazeera)
What Iraqi could possibly endorse the killing of civilians and the destruction of their cities for the ephemeral promise of American-style democracy? (In this case, democracy at gunpoint with all the trappings of military rule.)
Aside, from the growing hostility of the Iraqi people to the occupation, (the overwhelming majority now want America to leave) the “Coalition of the Willing” is deteriorating by the day.
Hungary, Spain, Poland, the Netherlands, Poland, Thailand, the Philippines, Dominican Republic, Honduras, New Zealand and Norway have either left the effort already, or are planning to leave shortly. This development is perhaps more significant than the actual resistance on the ground. The entire murderous crusade in Iraq is predicated on the disproportionate access to force in the hands of a few powerbrokers in Washington. It is this disparity of power that incites both unilateralism and aggression. Whatever takes place in Iraq that further isolates America and erodes its power serves the greater interests of world peace and stability. It’s tragic that the “wearing down” of America has to be at the expense of so many innocent lives.
Increasingly, the nations of the world are backing away from America’s aggression in Iraq. The smokescreen of “preemption” has not convinced 90% of the world’s population that the invasion was either legal or moral. The vast majority know that it was neither. The war has begun a gradual slide in America’s fortunes. Soon that will increase into a downward spiral. The careers of the next generation’s leaders won’t depend on their abilities to negotiate trade contracts or promote a domestic platform, but simply on their ability to convey their abhorrence for America. This will be the final testimonial to the Bush Global Democratic Revolution, that ill-conceived plan for world domination that led to national tragedy.
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 14 2004 16:02 utc | 81
@alabama — nice to see you again, and respectfully disagree re: semantic burden of “Empire”.
The British Empire — or Empah, don’cha know — was called such, and proudly called such, during its heyday. Queen Victoria was known as the Queen-Empress, at least by those in the Indian Service — i.e. the occupying force of the British East India Company which was, you will recall, a private corporation — privatising empire is nothing new, in fact many empires start as freebooting privateerism that is then blessed and “regularised” by corrupt governments, but I digress…
The catch phrase “The Empire Upon Which The Sun Never Sets” was originally contemporary and prideful, not retrospective and mocking. The same sense of pride and positive association is found in the ready use of “Emperor,” “Empress,” “Imperial” and so on in product names, place names, names of ships and trains. In fact, one of Amtrak’s long haul lines is still called ‘The Empire Builder.’
Certainly the jargon of Empire was openly used during the several centuries of the Roman Empire’s main strength and power, though it’s true that the troops still marched under the nostalgic SPQR acronym (I think the Romans must have invented the military acronym, little did they know…)
So I can’t agree that “Empire” is only a nostalgic, critical or reflective term. In some cases perhaps the people who were part of what we now look back on as “an Empire” or “an Imperial period” did not think of themselves as such, but in other cases (specifically the Roman and British, I suspect also the Holy Roman, Japanese, Mogul, and Chinese) they did, consciously and with satisfaction, understand and describe their polity as Imperial in reach and structure, their leader as an Emperor, and their territorial expansion as a good, just, and excellent thing.
The problem for the Yanks is that they have a national myth centred on rebellion against an imperial power, rebellion against their status as a colony, a raw-materials depot. This myth is so central to the national self-image that the concept of Empire is tarnished and therefore the Yanks have to deny fiercely that they are an Empire, no matter how vigorously and brutally they are doing Empire. The disconnect is severe and is notable in the preferred fictions and fantasies of the age. While the Yanks were still killing indigenes to steal their land, two preferred heroic narratives competed: the Noble Whiteboy “fighting off” angry savages (kind of like the Noble Burglar heroically fighting off Angry Homeowners, if you ask me), and the Noble Patriot Kicking the English Imperial Troops Out of the Homeland. Once the indigenes were politically neutralised — and particularly after a brief mood of self-reflection overcame the country post-Viet-Nam and made “kill the Indians” seem a somewhat less than noble video game concept — the Noble Patriot narrative was strengthened. In movie after movie and book after book, the plucky underdogs battle it out against overwhelming armed might (Star Wars movies play on this theme consistently), resisting “The Evil Empire” in one form or another.
The problem for Americans now is that functionally, structurally, in the real world out there, America is the Evil Empire being fought by ragged, plucky bands of underdogs. For plot and concept consistency, Princess Leia and the gang would have to stand with the insurgents in Falluja, not with the extremely Darth Vaderish techno-pseudo-majesty of the US Imperial Army as it flattens the city.
I don’t know how the Yanks are going to resolve this cognitive dissonance. The Brits managed, though, so it’s not insurmountable. Their national myth, pre-Empire, is strongly based on heroic defenders of the Island — Queen Boudicca fighting the Romans, Robin Hood defying the brutal Norman invader, “true Britons” resisting the Danes and the raiding Vikings, etc. What the Imperialist school of literature managed to do by the height of the British Empah — in my vague recollection — was to change the symbolism a bit so that schoolchildren were taught to admire the Romans, while still sympathising in a condescending sort of way with the plucky but doomed underdogs (now cast as “resisting the inexorable progress of History” rather than as simply defending their turf, blah blah.) They were still, of course, allowed to hate the French 🙂
I wonder if the Yanks will manage to rewrite their history and their national myth so as to present the British in a more sympathetic light, now that they themselves occupy many restive overseas colonies? (For a great Empire-positive treatment of the Roman Occupation, see the memorable short story by Conan Doyle — too lazy to go grab the book and look up title, but you will find it in any Complete Short Stories — about the departure of the legions).
Posted by: DeAnander | Nov 14 2004 18:14 utc | 88
slothrop- others who are better schooled in this area, please correct me, but the only “problem” I see for the global capitalists in the current situation is that America’s consumptive (sic) society is necessary to keep the whole house of cards going
…in that the weak dollar has made it possible for the U.S. to buy cheap goods from China and elsewhere and has, in turn, made it possible for China and India, among others, to finance the 3 trillion-ish budget deficit that the Federal Govt. currently holds.
although the Bush League would like the dollar to fall somewhat in order to make exports cheaper, if that fall develops a momentum of its own, a currency crisis is possible for the U.S., something that also happened to others, like Japan.
in that case, interest rates, which are already rising, will have a big impact on American consumption and the one area of the economy, the housing market, that has not yet seen its bubble burst.
the solution, of course, is to pay down the deficit. but this would mean that Bush has to give up the tax cuts for the wealthiest and also cut programs. I can see him willing to cut programs, but I cannot see him willling to cut the payoff to what he calls “his base” (as opposed to the dominionists who think they’re more than voting booth fodder for his class warfare.)
in either case, the global capitalists will not suffer too much, but Bush will have to answer for his actions, or lack of, at the voting booth. no doubt he will rely on the trope that markets, not govts, determine the economy, but voters tend to vote out economic disasters. Assuming, of course, that America will ever again have a more honest than not election..something I’m unsure about.
but even if the Republicans stay in office, there will be massive unrest if the economic well being of the middle class occurs under his watch.
yes, there is no doubt that some would try to blame the liberals for the problems, but most middle class Americans are financially aware enough to know that the party in power is responsible for their decisions. I think such attempts would fail horribly among the vast majority of Americans.
what I find “interesting” at this time is the way in which the extremist religious right has taken to calling liberals “Christ haters” or people who view Christ with contempt. (Bob Jones, Dobson, and Frank Pastore, for the loudest examples). Interesting conflation of contempt for Bush with contempt for Christ. Blasphemy, in fact.
Next I expect someone like Ann Coulter to publish “The International Liberal,” and take Ford’s old tome and simply cross out the word “Jew” and replace it with “Liberal.”
On the other hand, I feel pretty fatalistic now about the possibility of another large-scale attack within the United States, given the tone of the election crowing, the massacre in Falluja, and the warning bin Laden gave to Americans. In that case, who knows what would happen here.
Was it here that I read that he’d gotten “permission” from some mullah to use WMDs? The CIA agent who wrote Imperial Hubris will be on 60 Minutes tonight. He’s the one who said that bin Laden’s message to America was the “chance” to give us to turn aside from our assault on Islam (from his view..and the extremist right wing who support Bush give him and everyone else ample reason to interpret actions this way), in order for it to be acceptable to a mullah to also kill muslims in a large-scale attack, and to have given us a chance to “convert” or whatever.
I can only hope that such an attack will not target areas that are not sympathetic to Bush’s excesses. That’s terrible to say, but when you’ve tried to change the direction and have been thwarted by those who want more war, then they should have the honor of knowing what they voted for.
I would imagine though, if a “blue state” area was targeted, the rage that would follow would be directed at “red states” as well as Al Qaeda, since there is already a large well of rage over the election of Bush that I do not see going away anytime soon.
Posted by: fauxreal | Nov 14 2004 18:40 utc | 95
|
