July 19, 2006
THE BLIND CANNOT SEE AND THE DEAF CANNOT HEAR:
A proud imperial defeatist (Michael T Klare, 19 July 2006, Asia Times)
Recently, I was accused by a writer for the ultra-right Washington Times of being a "defeatist" when it comes to America's expansionist military policy abroad. The giveaway, it seems, is that I penned a book for the American Empire Project - a series of critical volumes published by Metropolitan Books. Contributors to the series, the article claimed, want "a retreat from Iraq to be the prelude to a larger collapse of American pre-eminence worldwide". My initial response on reading this was to insist - like so many anxious liberals - that no, I am not opposed to US pre-eminence in the world, only to continued US involvement in Iraq. But then, considering the charge some more, I thought, well, yes, I am in favor of abandoning the US imperial role worldwide. The United States, I'm convinced, would be a whole lot better off - and its military personnel a whole lot safer - if we repudiated the global dominance project of the Bush administration and its neo-conservative boosters...
Why, then, is the US squandering so many lives and so much treasure in a desperate effort to hold on in Iraq? Only one answer makes any sense from a Washington policymaker's point of view: to remain the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf region and thereby control the global flow of oil. This is the only interpretation that fits with the Pentagon's admission that it plans to retain at least some bases in Iraq indefinitely, no matter what sort of future government emerges in Baghdad (or whether such a government approves of a US presence).
The striking expansion of the US military presence in Central Asia, Southwest Asia and Africa in recent months reveals a similar geopolitical impulse. All of these areas are becoming increasingly important to the United States as sources of oil and natural gas, and in none of them can it be said the US is setting up bases to serve as beacons for the further advance of freedom and democracy, not given the nature of most of the governments the US supports in those places. Because many of America's leading energy suppliers in these regions are subject to internal unrest and ethnic conflict - a reaction, in most cases, to despotic regimes that remain in power with Washington's blessing - the United States is becoming ever more deeply involved in their defense, whether through the delivery of arms and military aid (as in Angola, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Nigeria) or via a direct US military presence (as in Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates).
It's a strange sensation to agree on the facts yet disagree completely on the conclusion. Posted by Pepys at July 19, 2006 4:55 PM
Oh yeah, this guy is professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College.
Does anyone know where the "blood and treasure" thing came from?
It seems to have come into general usage around 9/11.
Any thoughts on why it is so appealing to some?
Posted by: Pepys at July 19, 2006 5:17 PMI think it's like "Zionist", a way to attack Jews, while not admitting to attacking Jews.
Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at July 19, 2006 5:23 PMRight. This is what is happening, it is just the Comrade Professor thinks that what is happening is a bad thing. It's all about the oil and the Jews, right?
It turns out that there is another conclusion to be drawn from the same facts. The world needs law and order, particularly with respect to strategic resources, and the World Government mus tprovide it. That's what governments do,
What he calls controlling the Persion Gulf is really called enforcing the law of the sea. It might not be the most valuable service the US performs for the world, but it has to be near the top.
The professor gives us another nice symptom of BDS when he argues that the only reason to keep troops in Iraq is Bush's imperialistic scheme to control the region's oil. Two points he might want to consider: bin Laden is annoyed with us because we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia and we have a long history of stationing troops within the territory of defeated enemies. After all, we have troops stationed in England and haven't fought a war against them for nearly two centuries. Both of these predate President Bush.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 19, 2006 6:21 PMThe questions to ask the professor is the one Nigel Ferguson posed in the WSJ, 2004 - you have 4 options, professor:
US Hegemony
The Chi-Coms
Islamofascists
or Armed Camps
Why do you prefer to live under communism, fascism or armed camps?
Do you believe that you'll be "safer" because you have better weapons at this time?
Posted by: Sandy P at July 19, 2006 7:09 PMThe current system - created by the victors of WWII - is dysfunctional. It is based on a great power framework no longer viable. Only the United States has both the power and will to maintain order.
This might not be an issue if the entire world had successful states. Instead, there are many failed states that cannot maintain law and order within their own countries and which destabilize their surroundings. Pakistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan, and the Congo are the worse.
The current system will continue to atrophy and eventually collapse.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at July 19, 2006 7:40 PMMaybe "blood and treasure" came from this:
"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than the means." -- John Adams
Posted by: Pepys at July 19, 2006 8:43 PMChris,
Instead, there are many failed states that cannot maintain law and order within their own countries
Well, yes, but why leave France off your list?
Posted by: Kirk Parker at July 20, 2006 1:26 AM"Blood and Treasure"
Not Bismarck--earlier, and American.
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/3054
Peace-creeps have been throwing the phrase around for years.
Posted by: Lou Gots at July 20, 2006 1:55 PMThe US establishing and maintaining a presence in the Middle East might be more than just "the oiiiiil." Some have suggested that Amahdinejad and Iran's mullahs are interested in orchestrating events, including a major regional conflict, so that the Twelfth Imam will come. Is is possible that some responsible people in Washington are thinking that if the mullahs have that intention, a US presence in the Mideast puts the US in a more favorable position to be able to influence the course of such a conflict, should it develop?
Posted by: Henry IX at July 20, 2006 2:49 PM