Thursday, April 24, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
The Logic of Withdrawal Revisited
Gen. Odom's piece is worth reposting. In the last paragraph he makes the argument that the US military (and gov more generally) does not have the capacity to prevent Civil War in Iraq. But the USG does have the capacity to stop sending young men and women into the war zone, and that this should be its primary moral responsibility.
I think that here we face the fundamental paradox of American power. The American state has the power to affect historical outcomes not just in Wichita, Eureka, or... New Orleans, but it has the power to affect outcomes globally. It is precisely this global reach that defines America as Empire. But here's the paradox, while the US is very good at smashing states anywhere in the world, it can't on the other side of the coin, rub its "healing salve of democracy" on distant societies and suddenly sprout mini-Americas wherever it likes (sorry "transition studies" you'll have to find a new line of work... perhaps you should try "empire studies" its a growth industry).
But nonetheless, my realist friends counter, Despite whatever the motives might have been when it invaded, if the US withdraws now, the "people will devour one another." In effect, you can not have a few hundred thousand guys and gals with guns running around without having some affect on the security situation (I personally am on my best behavior when I see guys with machine guns around-- not because they've won my heart or mind, but simply because I'd rather not get shot... Think of BlackWater security contractors running around New Orleans firing on black people trying to cross the wrong bridge- and now inject a massive dose of whatever it was that made McGuire hit all those homeruns- and yeah, you've got a "security" of sorts..)
So the USG provides some degree of "security." But is this the, or a, solution the problems that Iraqis confront? I think we're now right back into the heart of the paradox of American power and the central problem confronting analysts of ME realities. When I first starting studying the ME, I was sure that Imperialism determined all outcomes in the region. That is, Empire moved through time and space unopposed, unilaterally imposing its will wherever, and whenever it liked. This is, of course, much easier than learning the actual history of the societies in question and discovering the local factors and dynamics that effect historical outcomes.
The point is that the US may retain a tremendous capacity for state-smashing- but in the long run, the USG is not the ONLY or even most important agency affecting outcomes in the country. What happens in Iraq will be determined by the people of Iraq- they really don't need the US to carry the "White Man's Burden"- even if it has contracted the likes of Colin and Condi to shoulder some of the weight.
Rather than entertaining the ideological fiction that the US his occupying Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqi people, perhaps we (speaking as an American now) should wrestle honestly with what's in our best interests, and let the Iraqis worry about what's in theirs. Idealism is usually a stalking horse for much more base motives anyway...
Don't get me wrong the USG owes the people of Iraq (and not just its friend Ahmed Chalabi) massive war reparations to be administered though a responsible international agency (again not Chalabi...). So in my opinion, the US should stop spending a trillion dollars a year maintaining the largest military establishment the world has ever seen (for FY 2008 figures see Chalmers Johnson), and start figuring out where we're going to borrow the money to pay the Iraqis back-- perhaps Saudi Arabia will loan us the money- their Sovereign Wealth Fund seems to be doing pretty well....
Iraq "debacle"? What "debacle"?!
Lack of planning? what lack of planning?! The US planed to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Can you say "Mission Accomplished." That's the kind of foresight, regularity, and predictability that Halliburton could build a business model on.
Tom Engelhardt makes this and many other points in his latest post.
He also suggests that it may be problematic to have a NS Adviser- cum Sec. State- with a Chevron oil tanker named after her. Though it doesn't seem to have helped Chevron much. Check out this graph of oil profits, 2001-2006 (all figures in millions of USD). Why do Chevron's earnings and profits lag so far behind its competitors? This is a real question. Is Chevron heavily invested in Latin America or other places where the state is still strong? (The graph is from a book I was working on last year: Ferguson, No End in Sight, 2007.)
When idealism loses its charm, never underestimate a shameless appeal to realism:
Greenspan: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq was is largely about oil." (and BASES it's worth adding... as the British learned long ago, oil without bases is not really yours- how did all of our oil end up under their sand anyway?)
But not to worry oh Great Liberators, the people of Iraq love Western military bases in their country, just ask the HASHEMITES!!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sovereign Wealth and the Miracle of Capitalist Transformation in the Gulf
Two takes on on the miracles of capitalist transformation in the Gulf. The WP: "Tomorrow's emerging Mkts" and Mike Davis: "A Paradise Built on Oil"
Let's hope Bush isn't serious about requiring (or a least politely requesting, or humbly suggesting...) that US autos achieve 35/mpg by.... 2020!! or else, this miracle of capitalism might just be one more function of the boom-bust cycle that we all know and love so much...
BTW, if sea levels rise dramatically in the next few years and decades, what will happen to that map of the world that Dubai is building in the Gulf? Perhaps they'll call in Halliburton to reconstruct in a more accurate likeness of he world...
McCain and Pastor Hagee
Ramzy Baroud, "The Politics of Armageddon: McCain's Pastors and the Middle East"
Obama's the one with "Pastor Problems"??
PsyOps: The American Front in the Terror War
This from the Times: "Behind Military Analysts, The Pentagon's Hidden Hand"
The Times informs us that "Hidden behind the appearance of objectivity [is] a Pentagon information apparatus that [has] used analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance..." or achieve what Torrie Clark referred to as "information dominance."
The Times now thinks that Gens. McCaffery and Downing "serving" on the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" might have undermined their claims to "objectivity." They don't call it the "paper of record" for nothing...
Funny, when Col. Sam Gardiner (professor of Strategy at various military institutions) described stories such as the toppling of the Saddam Statue in Firdos Sq. and the rescue of Pvt. Lynch as media plants, and part of a well orchestrated campaign of information warfare directed at the at the American public, what they in the business call PsyOps (DN!, 2 Dec 2004), it was dismissed as "wild conspiracy theory," but now that the Times has conducted an "examination" it passes through the pearly gates of facticity.
World Food Crisis
Osamah sends this: "How Hunger Could Topple Regimes".
Wow, even Time magazine has to admit that there may be contradictions built into the structure of the capitalist world system which render the system-crisis prone to say the least.
For a preview see the post "A Mini Revolution?" its a YouTube clip of demonstrators tearing down a poster of Hosni Mubarak on 6 April.
Muqtada al-Sadr: Iraqi Nationalist
Muqtada al-Sadr is not an Iranian proxy. He is an Iraqi nationalist very critical of Iran (Iran has ben trying to hedge bets against its investment in SCIRI). Patrick Cockburn makes this point today and in his new book (2 other chapters of the book are available on counterpunch), as does Juan Cole virtually every day.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
States without Borders
Averny has this to say about Manifest Destiny in Israel:
"A conscious ideology can be analyzed, criticized, opposed. It is much more difficult to fight against an unconscious one, which directs the agenda without giving itself away.
That's why it is so important to locate, uncover and analyze it."
Isolationism?
Had enough of internationalism? Here's a isolationist argument against Empire and war in pursuit.
Kauffman argues: "one cannot love the 'human race' before one loves particular human beings, neither can one love the 'world' unless he first achieves a deep understanding of his [or her] own little piece of that world."
its an interesting argument anyway.
Spectacle '08
Regarding Obama, Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY) has this to say: "That boy's finger does not need to be on the button"
A technological question
Why won't blogspot let me paste text from the web? Is there something I am missing?
Shahid on Hizballah
"For the first time in history, an Israeli invasion had been reversed by a cunning guerilla resistance"
Paul Craig Roberts on Empire
Paul Craig Roberts: by far the best Asst. Sec of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration on the push for war on Iran and on the collapse of American power
General Odom and the Logic of Withdrawal
Lt. General William Odom: By far the best head of the NSC in the Reagan Administration outlines the logic of withdrawal
A Mini Revolution in Egypt?
Mubarak: How come when this statue came down CNN wasn't there to celebrate?
Make the Shift
Kiki and Bubu: The Labor Theory of Value and the New Economy (w/ sock puppets and in 4 minutes, good for kids and their parents)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
