The Cost of Empire

Economist Joseph Stiglitz on the moral and economic costs of US policy in Iraq.

The Habbush Affair

In December 2003, a letter from Iraqi Director of National Intelligence Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti to Saddam Hussein dated in 2001 was "discovered" by the provisional regime in Baghdad. The letter "proved" that Iraq had WMD and had trained Muhammad Atta. 

Here (and here) is the initial Telegraph reporting on the discovery of the letter.

Ron Suskind's new book claims (based on interviews with CIA sources) that Habbush informed the CIA in 2001 that Iraq had no WMD the White House ordered the CIA to forge the letter to justify the war ex post facto. 

Amy Goodman and WaPo on Habbush  Affair.

Obama and... Biden?

Alexander Cockburn on Biden and the state of the race. Cockburn offers his take on how it is that Obama has managed to lose the initiative on virtually every issue. And in politics, as in war, initiative is everything. Once you force your opponent on the defensive, you control the tempo of the contest. When Obama was riding high from his world tour McCain managed to launch an attack from a defensive position and so regain the initiative. The Obama campaign has demonstrated no such capacity.

USF Professor of Politics and Middle East Studies (and formerly a big Obama booster) Stephen Zunes comments on the Biden selection. Zunes sees the selection of a pro-war senator (and a highly influential one at that- the war authorization and its democratic support would not have been possible without Biden) as a betrayal of the anti-war sentiment that got Obama the nomination.

"AIPAC: We like Biden"

Alarm Bells, Empire and Obama

The friend of my enemy is my enemy: if NYT publishes an opinion praising Obama's foreign policy stands as sensible, then I know we're in trouble. (The NYT particularly likes his commitment to retaining the ominously titled "residual force" in Iraq, and his commitment to "surge" American forces in Afghanistan.  (Obama's "plan" is here.)

Here Tom Hayden takes the time to actually learn something about Afghanistan so as to better explain why sending more American forces there is not a good idea. And here Howard Zinn offers a more general critic of war and militarism.  

And here Corey B. Walker, Asst Prof of Africana studies at Brown and the author of the forthcoming The Noble Fight: African American Freemasons and the Struggle for Democracy in America offers a critique of American imperialism in both it Democratic and Republican guises. 

Juan Cole, a man with very deep knowledge of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and who is generally very supportive of the whole Obama enterprise offers what he calls a "friendly critique" of Obama's "plan." But while he calls it a "friendly critique," what he has to say is really quite devastating. It reveals the depth of Obama's ignorance (as well as some political and character flaws), and leads me to wonder,  if you really have no concept or capacity to comprehend social, political, and military developments in places like Iraq and Afghanistan why on god's green earth would you expend massive amounts of US blood and treasure to remake them in "America's image"? And if Obama is not motivated by a idealistic/ neo-conservative/ interventionist ideology (call it idealism with a knife) of spreading American values (whatever those are... ) at gunpoint, but he is rather driven by a realist concern for American power and security, then his strategy is even worse, as it reveals deep ignorance regarding the geopolitical forces at work in those places where he'd like to send American forces, and suggests that he really has no idea how to work carrots and sticks to achieve stated geo-political objectives. The danger here is the JFK/LBJ effect trying to prove your tough by beating up on some foreign country for what are essentially domestic political reasons only to be drawn into a quagmire with devastating consequences for your political brand-name (not to mention domestic policy objectives). its not just bad policy, its bad politics.  

No War, or else...

Will Obama now turn Right on Iraq? You know 4 right turns takes you in circle, 8 right turns takes you in 2 circles. If you keep turning right you don't actually go anywhere... (Although, in truth, I don't know if shifting your position from unintelligibly  vague to even more unintelligibly vague constitutes a right turn).

Robert Fanita argues that we should probably prepare ourselves for yet another right turn. Tom Hayden lays out some minimum demands for the peace movement to bring to Obama. My question is, minimum demands, or what?? Or we'll "throw our vote away" and vote for Nader? Obama knows we're boxed, we've got nowhere to go. We have no recourse. We are totally powerless, and entirely dependent on his largess. If he decides to throw us a bone, we'll say thank you and take it. If decides to let us starve, we'll argue, "at least he's better than McCain." This is democracy in the "land of the free and the home of the brave." If we could just figure out how to export that to Iraq and Afghanistan we might live a better world.  

in any case, it looks as though Obama's on his way to Iraq to ask the Generals what he should do once he is president. Let me guess they will say that war is going beuatifully. We've turned the corner, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, all we need is more troops and more time... 

I think going to Iraq is a brilliant idea, but not to ask the generals anything. He should be TELLING  them to pack their bags because they are coming home. Not in 16(ish) months, and not depending on "what the conditions on the ground are."  But immediately because 1) American forces have no right to be there, and 2) we cannot afford this bullshit war. While he is there he should be meeting with regional leaders to discuss how US war reparations and humanitarian assistance to those displaced by the American initiative are to be coordinated. No permanent bases, no residual "anti-terrorism" forces, no Blackwater security contractors to defend ExxonMobil's newly acquired holdings.  But Obama doesn't really care what I think. Perhaps if I was 80, lived in Virginia, went to Church every sunday, and wore an American flag pin on my lapel, he 'd show some interest in my one meaningless vote. But given that I am 30, live in California (a state that is not being contested), have never been to any Church, and have never worn a lapel, let alone a flag pin, I don't count. 

Oil and Occupation

In the world beyond the spectacle ExxonMobil gets back into Iraq after a 36 year hiatus. 

Fourth Generation Warfare

William S. Lind on "Fourth Generation Warfare" in Iraq (CP)

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!!

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. 

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

Nir Rosen and the Myth of the "Surge"

Nir Rosen is brilliant in the Nation and Rolling Stone