Opinion: The Unchanging Imperial Paradigm

The Unchanging Imperial Paradigm
by Sheldon Richman

Despite President Obama’s trumpeted force drawdown in Afghanistan, by the end of next summer more than twice as many U.S. troops will be fighting in that country’s civil war as there were when he became president in 2009. His soothing words notwithstanding, a force of about 70,000 will remain there at least until the end of 2014. We can be sure, however, that that won’t stop the president from campaigning for reelection on a peace platform.

Obama’s speech the other night was mostly show, a spectacle to make the war- and deficit-weary public think he’s taking substantial steps toward disengagement. He did something similar in Iraq, though 50,000 troops remain and are still taking casualties.

It is easy for a president to manipulate public opinion, especially in foreign affairs and most especially when the mainstream media — conservative and “liberal” — are so compliant. The war will go on, but probably under the radar more than before, just as the war in Iraq does. The public and mainstream media attitude will be, “The president said the war is ending, so there’s no need to pay attention.”

One problem: Not much is changing.

In the coming months, politicians and pundits will debate whether Obama’s drawdown is too slow or too fast. The president explicitly took a middle position between those who wanted merely a token withdrawal, such as the top military brass and Sen. John McCain, and those who want an immediate exit, such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

But the pace, though not insignificant, is hardly the main issue. The main issue is the empire. If all combat troops were removed from Afghanistan tomorrow, the U.S. government would continue to treat that country like a protectorate, ready to send troops back if events are not to the policy elite’s liking. It’s the paradigm of empire that must be rejected. But Obama’s drawdown and disavowal of empire notwithstanding, the U.S. policy elite have no intention of reconsidering America’s hegemonic role in the world. To be sure, fiscal difficulties have forced a reconsideration of tactics, but the imperial framework remains. It was compactly summed up by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 as he prepared to move against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait: “What we say goes.”

Empires always require myths, and the U.S. empire is no different. In the days before Obama’s speech, McCain and others campaigned for no more than token drawdown by asserting that Afghanistan would become a threat to the American people if the U.S. military disengaged, just as it did — supposedly — after the Soviets withdrew in 1989. “We withdrew from Afghanistan one time,” McCain said. “We withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban came, eventually followed by al-Qaeda, followed by the attacks on the United States of America.”

That is empire-serving nonsense. The policymakers did not abandon Afghanistan; they tried to micromanage it in defiance of Afghan history and culture. As Michael Scheuer, who once ran the CIA’s bin Laden unit, wrote in 2009, “In the immediate post-Soviet years, then, Washington spent tens of millions of dollars to try to form exactly the same type of strong and centralized Afghan government — the type of regime that historically causes war in Afghanistan — it is trying to form today.... The Afghans wanted no part of the secularism the U.S.-led West insisted on then....” Instead of letting the conflicting Afghan factions find some way to peace after a decade of brutal Soviet intrusion, American policymakers fanned the flames of civil war.

In any event, it was neither neglect of Afghanistan nor intervention there that prompted al-Qaeda’s attacks on 9/11. Rather it was half a century of U.S. support for brutality in the Muslim and Arab world, from Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, to the corrupt monarchy in Saudi Arabia, to the torturous secular dictatorships in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries.

Regardless of what Obama does in Afghanistan, as long as the U.S. government eyes the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia the way an imperial power eyes its colonies, there will be threats to contend with. The path to American security lies in renouncing a foreign policy designed to rule the world.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.

Word on the Street: Congressional Bill Gives Obama Unlimited Warmaking Authority

It seems that certain politicians are drawing the wrong lessons from the killing of Osama Bin Laden. It seems that more and more, they are obsessed with the Middle East. But my question is, what about Middle America.

Tipped off by a Ron Paul website, we learned that certain members of Congress are preparing to sneak in a provision that gives President Barack Obama the authority to initiate unilateral military action whenever he chooses. Now we don't always agree with Ron Paul. But on this issue, he makes perfect sense -- this is a blatant disregard for the American Constitution and its requirement that Congress be the one to declare war.

Think about it -- if you're a Democrat, would you give former President George Bush or Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney this kind of blank check authority? If you're a Republican, would you give Hillary Clinton this kind of authority?

It was never the intent of the Founding Fathers to give our country that sort of authority -- they constantly warned against excessive foreign entanglements. Even the Taliban has declared good riddance to Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden planned and implemented a war of aggression against the US, including the tragic 9/11 attacks. So now that he is dead, the question becomes, what are we doing in Afghanistan?

The rest needs to be up to the Afghan people. It is not our business to referee a civil war between various tribal factions. And it is not our business to get involved in civil wars anywhere around the globe. Suppose Obama uses his newfound powers responsibly. Fine. But what guarantee is there that the next President of either party won't misuse those blank check powers whenever he or she sees fit, without any kind of accountability from Congress whatsoever?

And the more that our government drains our treasury for fighting wars around the globe, the less money that we have for repairing our roads, adequately funding our schools, or developing our low income areas of this country. Warmaking needs to be a careful decision that should be deliberated by people who are in a position to understand the terrible human toll that wars create. Our Senators and Congressmen are in a much better position to understand the human consequences of war because they have to answer to the people every so often. The President is much more isolated from this. And besides, our system is a system of checks and balances -- to give one man the power to make unlimited wars around the globe upsets the system of checks and balances that our founders so carefully designed. For the sake of the Constitution and for the sake of funding our roads, schools, and children, our Congress needs to reject this insane proposition.

Ron Paul Exploring 2012 Presidential Run

Ron Paul is exploring a presidential bid in 2012. The libertarian candidate, who is running as a Republican, intrigued a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum with his combination of small government politics and anti-war stances as well as his call to end the War on Drugs. The problem with him was that he could not complete the sale. For Paul to do better, he must close the deal.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/303851

What about Saudi Arabia?

Ron Paul raises an important question about Egypt -- if something similar were to happen in Saudi Arabia, then what would happen to oil markets and gas prices here?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-middle-eastern-revolt-stems-from-us-upholding-authoritarian-regimes.html