The words of democracy conflict with the actions of empire in the Middle East

The US military and quasi-military interventions and ambitions are virtually worldwide, even greater than the over 1,000 US military bases already in place in scores of countries across the globe. The continuing war in and occupation of Afghanistan and the ongoing “non-combatant” occupation of largely devastated Iraq, the long-term support of un-democratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions, the US efforts to militarily bulk up India’s military and nuclear might (against China) – all are indications of US global special interests in these particular parts of the world And for what: for access to oil, potential oil/gas pipelines, sea lanes for the transport of other commodities, the sale of military equipment by US arms makers, the supplying of US troops, and the ability to move goods and military shipments to and from the Arabian Sea or Mediterranean Sea.

Afghanistan is an important component of this grand and ever-adapting, but mostly imperialistic, grand plan to advance hegemony wherever feasible. Afghanistan has a wealth of untapped minerals, a location desirable for a pipeline from the Central Asian countries (e.g., Turkmenistan), through Pakistan, to the Arabian Sea, an important geopolitical position, and a potential, and sought after, example of US/NATO power - e.g., another “mission accomplished.”

The imperialistic thrust of US power also has repercussions on domestic politics and policies. Imperialism is based unequal exchange, access to perceived vital resources, sought advantages in competition with other powerful or potentially powerful countries, the cooptation of elites who will serve the interests of the imperialist state. Generating fear of foreign attacks in the US population is a significant part of the willingness of many Americans to go on supporting a vast military-industrial complex. State and media propaganda also help to instill in the minds of many Americans that national pride is at stake and a hyper-patriotism is called for by all good Americans. It also serves the interests of other parts of the US corporate-dominated economy and polity to keep citizens confused about why their jobs and conditions of life are in decline. That is, the decline in the situations of most Americans is touted not to be rooted in the profit-driven plutocracy and imperialism but in their own alleged mis-directed consumer practices or poor life choices – or perhaps in immigration to the US.

Hence, one of the outcomes of imperialism is a huge transfer of tax obligations from the corporations and rich to other Americans – i.e., we are said to need their entrepreneurial inventiveness, and their investments, so that good things will trickle down to the rest of us. So, imperialism is linked to inequality at home as well as abroad. This is not a stable system because inequality, in its turn, generates tensions and conflict. In the meantime, the US is expanding a surveillance state that attempts to nip potentially serious criticism and action in the bud. We’ll see whether protests against Republican policies succeed to change the thrust of domestic policies and reign in US imperialism.

Here are some excerpts from articles published this past week that illustrate my points.

US military power an expression of empire“

James Carroll authors an article printed on commondreams.org titled “A Declaration of Empire: Proposed law would vastly expand boundaries of US military mission.

Carroll writes that the “House of Representatives is debating a new definition of America’s military mission….the proposed National Defense Authorization Act expands the notion of America’s enemy to include forces ‘associated’ with named antagonists like Al Qaeda and the Taliban.” He continues:

“ According to its critics (including numerous House Democrats who asked last week that such language be dropped), this seemingly innocuous expansion would, in effect, license an open-ended bleeding of the American battle away from Iraq and Afghanistan to any location in which such vaguely defined associates operate. The two present wars could become three, four, or five, and could shift from the Middle East to Africa, South Asia, or anywhere that a photo, say, of Osama bin Laden hung in the barracks.”

But Carroll reminds us:

“…For most of a decade, the US military has already operated against an amorphous, transnational terrorist enemy under the broadest possible reading of its 9/11 authorization. Drones, cruise missiles, special-ops, and mercenary forces have hit targets with impunity well beyond the officially acknowledged battle zones. The Obama administration, otherwise so different from its predecessor, is freelancing militarily, just as the Bush administration did.”

Carroll asks why such an expanded mandate is perceived to be needed now.

“Though the language in the proposed legislation simply affirms what has become White House and Pentagon practice, more than policy is at stake. The law after 9/11 made an implicit claim to global force projection based on an emergency; the new legislation would explicitly reject any time or place limitations on that force. In other words, a seemingly subtle shift marks a movement from the exceptional to the threshold of normal. There is a word for the realm into which that threshold opens: The legislation is a step toward an open declaration of American empire.”
Carroll then makes the point that the expanded conception of “empire” is indicates that the US policymakers see the US as an exception to the use of military force and interventions “for the sake of political order and economic well-being – not only of Americans but of the world…the idea that the global rules of order apply to every nation except the one that enforces them.”

The consequence?

“Even so, the more far-reaching consequence of 21st-century American empire will be the final destruction of authentic internationalism — nations bound by the power of agreed democratic law, cross-border systems of checks and balances, all abiding by the same rules, mutually enforced. The destruction, that is, of the only world with a hope of real peace and justice.”
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/17

The illegal use of US military power rolls on in the Middle East: For oil, not democracyRep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) crafted the following message, which appeared on several sites, including the progressivenetwork.wordpress.com on May 19. The title: “US Actions, Not Obama’s Words, Tell Story of US Middle East Policy.”

“…When the President says ‘[i]t will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy,’ we must look more carefully at how this policy has been implemented as well as the implications of the actions that have already been taken.

“President Obama violated the Constitution by pursuing war against Libya without a Constitutionally-required authorization for the use of military force or declaration of war from Congress. His actions, and now his policy recitations, set the stage for more interventions, presumably in Syria and Iran. His recounting of the reasons for U.S. intervention in Libya is at odds with the facts. There was no clear evidence of an impending massacre in Libya. There was menacing rhetoric and a violent government put-down of an armed insurrection which may have been joined by some with legitimate non-violent aspirations. No one can justify the actions of any parties to this conflict. In any case, discretion requires leaders to move with the utmost care in developing military responses to rhetoric and similar care to intervention in a civil war.

“The UN mandate to protect civilians was exceeded almost immediately and used as a pretext for regime change. The U.S. and NATO are one in Libya. Our nation, through NATO, has taken sides in a civil war which is spreading more violence throughout Libya and putting more civilians' at risk. The Interim Council of the rebels moved quickly to a $100 million oil marketing agreement with Qatar, unmasking a potential reason for intervention: control over Libya's vast oil fields which can yield over $300 million in oil daily. The military intervention in a civil war against the backdrop of a struggle for oil casts a shadow of doubt upon lofty rhetoric about positive change, peace and stability. That the U.S. has not intervened militarily in Bahrain and Yemen demonstrates that violent intervention carries high risks and political resolution of conflict is desirable. We must be prepared to seek political resolution of conflicts through statecraft not through military force.

“NATO's expansion as ‘globocop’ is hardly about peace and stability. It has people in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the streets loudly protesting NATO's onslaught against innocent civilians.

“We have an obligation to work together to make America safe, but it is important to note that our intervention in Iraq was based on lies, that ‘the end of combat operations’ in Iraq is not the end of American occupation, and the war in Afghanistan could drag on for another decade. These wars, along with the conflicts over Pakistan, Yemen and Libya will continue to cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars and add trillions to the deficit, diverting resources from pressing domestic needs in health care, education, job creation and retirement security.

“The President wants to ‘advance economic development for nations that transition to democracy.’ It would be good to advance economic development in the United States, since there are over 14 million Americans are out of work. Such a high level of unemployment degrades our own democracy.”

Arming Middle East Dictators despite rhetorical support of “Arab Spring”

Nick Turse pens a typically insightful and well documents article on the following blog, and other sites, “Obama’s Reset: Arab Spring or Same Old Thing? His answer is to analyze “how the President and the Pentagon Prop Up Both Middle Eastern Despots and American Arms Dealers.” http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/barack-obama-arms-his-muslim-dictators.html

Turse opens his article: “If you follow the words, one Middle East comes into view; if you follow the weapons, quite another.

“This week, the words will take center stage. On Thursday, according to administration officials, President Obama will ‘reset’ American policy in the Middle East with a major address offering a comprehensive look at the Arab Spring, ‘a unified theory about the popular uprisings from Tunisia to Bahrain,’ and possibly a new administration approach to the region.”

His central argument: “In the meantime, all signs indicate that the Pentagon will quietly maintain antithetical policies, just as it has throughout the Obama years. Barring an unprecedented and almost inconceivable policy shift, it will continue to broker lucrative deals to send weapons systems and military equipment to Arab despots. Nothing indicates that it will be deterred from its course, whatever the president says, which means that Barack Obama’s reset rhetoric is unlikely to translate into meaningful policy change in the region.

Turse finds the contradiction, the hypocrisy, illustrated in many parts of the Middle East, and points out:

“For months now, the world has watched as protesters have taken to the streets across the Middle East to demand a greater say in their lives. In Tunisia and Egypt, they toppled decades-old dictatorships. In Bahrain and Yemen, they were shot down in the streets as they demanded democracy. In the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, they called for reforms, free speech, and basic rights, and ended up bloodied and often in jail cells. In Iraq, they protested a lack of food and jobs, and in response got bullets and beatings.”

US weapons were used to suppress critics of regimes.

“As the world watched, trained eyes couldn’t help noticing something startling about the tools of repression in those countries. The armored personnel carriers, tanks, and helicopters used to intimidate or even kill peaceful protesters were often American models.

“For decades, the U.S. has provided military aid, facilitated the sale of weaponry, and transferred vast quantities of arms to a host of Middle Eastern despots. Arming Arab autocrats, however, isn’t only the work of presidents past. A TomDispatch analysis of Pentagon documents finds that the Obama administration has sought to send billions of dollars in weapons systems -- from advanced helicopters to fighter jets -- to the very regimes that have beaten, jailed, and killed pro-democracy demonstrators, journalists, and reform activists throughout the Arab Spring.”

[….]

“Since the summer of 2009, President Obama, by way of the Pentagon and with State Department approval, has regularly notified Congress of his intent to sell advanced weaponry to governments across the Middle East, including Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Under U.S. law, Congress then has 30 days to review the sale before the Pentagon and associated military contractors enter into more formal contract talks with individual nations.”

Turse’s analysis goes into detail to illustrate his thesis that the US has for years sold conventional and advanced weapons to dictators throughout the Middle East and continues to do so now.

Here are just a few of his examples.

“Last year, notifications also went out concerning the sale of F-16 fighters, armored personnel carriers, tank ammunition, and advanced computer systems to Iraq, C-17 military transport aircraft for Kuwait, mobile missile systems for Bahrain, and Apache attack helicopters and tactical missile systems for the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, however, was the big winner by far with a blockbuster $60 billion agreement for helicopters, fighter jets, radar equipment, and advanced smart bombs that will represent, if all purchases are made, the largest foreign arms deal in American history.”

He discusses the importance of military sales to US weapons makers and names some of the chief lobbyists for the Pentagon. And he points out that the Pentagon’s Arab partners across the Middle East have “deep pockets” for the purchase of weapons. The political and ideological “price” is that the long-standing US support of dictators. As Turse writes US weapons’ sales

“…may help to explain the Obama administration’s willingness to support dictators like Tunisia’s Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak until their ousters were givens, and to essentially look the other way as security forces in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and elsewhere, sometimes using American-supplied equipment, suppressed pro-democracy activists. After all, the six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council -- Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, along with regional partner Jordan -- are set to spend $70 billion on American weaponry and equipment this year, and as much as $80 billion per year by 2015.”

US weapons have been used against critics rallying against Middle East regimes in Iraq. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sent armed forces “into neighboring Bahrain to help put down pro-democratic protests.” They were rewarded by the Obama administration with clearance for “$330 million worth of advanced night vision and thermal-imaging equipment.”

With questions being raised in the US about the size of the military budget, Turse’s following points are particularly relevant.

“…the Pentagon is leaning ever more heavily on rich rulers in the Arab world to prop up the military-corporate complex at home. If the Pentagon and the weapons makers have their way, the provisional successes of the demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia will turn out to be outliers as an Arab Spring turns distinctly wintry.”

The Point

The militarized foreign policy is a central aspect of US imperialism and the country’s elites and power-brokers continuing efforts to maintain US hegemony across the globe, especially in the Middle East and nearby regions in Africa and Central Asia that are important for their resources, geopolitical locations, and for shoring up the US “empire” against rising competition from China.

We should be vigilant against this policy and, among other things, be discriminating in distinguishing “words” from “actions.”