open Democracy News Analysis - A mission impossible, Paul Rogers - Comments

rushda siddiqui on "A mission impossible "

rushda siddiqui — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:32:30 +0000

Erik,
There is no doubt that the US act of occuption is unethical, and it is a drain on the US economy. The point is not the cost incurred by the US, as much as a return on the investment it is going to get. The direct intervention is a temporary step in colonization. A history of colonization by Europe would tell you that the Europeans took very few countries as direct colonies. The believed in uing force to install puppet governments. to colonize a country, you do not have to be there physically. Even in Iraq or in Afghanistan, the troops are going to stay till they are able to establish a functioning polity that will be totally dependent on the US and allies.

The beauty of today's colonization lies in the indirect subjugation. Everything that is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan reeks of colonization. The local cultures and customs are disparaged, the economy is being made dependent on the global market, the security appartus is no longer indigenous and is dependent on the external appartus for decision making. Most importantly, the personal laws have been changed to the Western Laws, the polity is no longer evolving (an evolved option has been imposed from the top) and the social fabric has been shreded. In brief, colonization has evolved -- economies, societies, polities, civilizations have not.

irine52 on "A mission impossible "

irine52 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:22:08 +0000

This in reply to Michael T., rushda siddiqui, PL2008

As I said before, the US does not have the means to wage war, to occupy countries, to bring democracy to the Arabs and others.

The Bush administration entered Iraq based on lies, the reason why the US is in Afghanistan is not quite clear. In the US there is as much democracy as there is in Europe, even in Russia - in other words, live is the same in any of these countries, as a matter of fact, life in Russia has more quality for the individual than in lot of other places, because the economy is doing very well. Corruption? Give me a country that has no corruption. As long as we have governments like in the US, Europe, Russia, etc., corruption is a given.

Democracy is equal rights for everybody, female and male equality, basic healthcare for all, quality education on every level, free and uncontrolled, untampered elections (even in the US elections are not free and untampered).

The US must realize that the country is only one among many equals and should work only within the UN, NATO, and other organizations instead of trying to go it alone. It can't do it anymore, it is as broke as many of its citizens.

Erik Wassenich

irine52 on "A mission impossible "

irine52 — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:55:35 +0000

The time has come for the US to finally settle disputes diplomatically, not militarily. The US is a worldpower in name only, the country lacks the necessary military organization to be the world's policeman, but mainly, it lacks the money to pay for these excursions. The United States government is practically broke, also because the US citizens do not save money as the citizens of other countries do. The US population is as much in hock as their government, if not more so. On top of it, many US banks have lost hundreds of billions on real estate speculation. Now the largest US industry is SPECULATION, the country has outsourced everything that can be manufactured. The real US capital is now in China and other low cost countries - and that includes US technology. We have given away and give away everyday know-how and technology to 'manufacturing' countries practically for free.
We are not only financially broke, we are also morally broke. The Muslim fanatics against the US religious fanatics - who is going to win?! The Muslim fanatics, of course, they have the oil and gas and our dollars, we only have subprime mortgages, most of them in default.

Erik Wassenich

PL2008 on "A mission impossible "

PL2008 — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:14:01 +0000

Paul,

Great article, but could you further develop the actual motives
of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

"The term "occupying" and "occupation" are not in the vocabulary of
the White House or 10 Downing Street: from their perspective what is
happening is a major security operation to win the war on terror while
bringing two key countries safely into the western orbit."

Is it not better to explicitly state that the war on terror is a useful cover for
appropriating the regions resources? Just as the neo-con agenda of spreading democracy
in the region is also in reality an attempt to appropriate the regions resources.

Surely the war on terror and the spread of democracy would be
better served by alternative actions. Surely the neo-cons are aware of this and therefore its
not so much that they failed to achieve their stated aims by the disastrous conflicts in
both countries but rather they failed, so far, to achieve their underlying aims of
control over the regions resources.

thanks,

rushda siddiqui on "A mission impossible "

rushda siddiqui — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:37:28 +0000

An extremely well articulated view point Mr. Rogers. There is just one little request that I have. You have made your point keeping in mind the expenses involved in the operation of occupation -- human and monetary. Fair enough. However it needs to be understood that pulling out would leave behind a bigger debry. Keeping the original intention of American imperialsm in mind, or if you prefer the idea of defeating hostile forces -- the only way that the US or any other country in the West can make a headway in the region is by staying there and reversing everything that the countries there have achieved. The US experiment in Afghanistan is the only way to ensure that the Afghans remain an ally of the US and become a friendly country. Technically, the provioncial reconstruction program is the only way to counter the Taliban.
The losses that Bush's campaign are suffering are temporary. The problem lies not with the 'intention' but with the execution. If you can manage to remove corruption (not from the ranks of the Iraqis and Afghans) from the Americans/ British involved, let the execution be clean -- the results would surprise you. It is the petty bourgeoise or the pettiness of the people involved that is defeating the original plan of the neo-cons.

Give it a thought.

Michael T on "A mission impossible "

Michael T — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:38:41 +0000

I entirely agree with the thrust of your comments, Paul.

But don't we need to go further?

You say: "The occupation of countries in the middle east and southwest Asia by western military forces is no longer politically feasible."

Why not: "The occupation of countries by western military forces is no longer politically feasible."

Why limit it to those regions? Yes, we can have bases in more friendly parts of the world, but 'occupation'? The whole concept of holding down territory by force has to be thrown out the window.

The time for that has past in any region.

Sajid Ali Khan on "A mission impossible "

Sajid Ali Khan — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 10:50:01 +0000

This pointless phrase "War on ******" has been brushed out of England usage.
Far better simply to call U.S. actions "wars of aggression" with all its connotation of breeching international laws as originally exemplified in the words of US Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson during the Nuremberg Conference on Military Trials, on August 12 1945, namely,"No grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced & condemned as an instrument of policy."
The actual law was signed by the president & ratified by the Congress of the USA of the time & so became part of what is known as the superior law of the United States.
No getting past this.

shimgong on "A mission impossible "

shimgong — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 08:46:25 +0000

... in his standpoint on this problem in his "Power of Nightmares" (search YouTube for this excellent video-essay!): the problem here is political decision-making based on fictional neo-conservative (and, extremely simmilarily, islamist) simplifications of the "other", that alas is much more the problem of US elite than angry muslim street males (the difference in power is stunning).

Nobody can force iraqis, afghanis or russians and byelorussians (for that matter) "become free" in the sense of simplified free-market electoral democracy "adoption". But everybody in the afluent "West" (East Asia included) can help them -- with know-how, technologies, emotional support -- to discover and develop they own kind of positive, not negative laissez faire -- kind of freedom, even be it an "islamic" one (dialogue with Iran is possible and must take place).

So military failures of assymetric warfare is not the problem -- underlying attitudes inherited from narrow, simplified workd-view cold war strategies are.

Algis Davidavicius
******************************
New Left Lithuania
http://www.nk95.org/
http://nk95.wordpress.com/

A mission impossible, Paul Rogers

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:30:06 +0000

The military and political problems of United States and coalition policy in Afghanistan and Iraq are causing fresh uncertainty and dispute in western capitals. This short-term concern, however, must be seen against the background of the entire war on terror - and the American unilateralism that propelled it - since its launch in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001.

In the months before 9/11, the neo-conservative euphoria in Washington was already at its height. George W Bush had been in the White House since January 2001 and the administration was developing a clear unilateralist agenda in pursuit of the “new American century”. This was apparent in its attitude to international agreements: there was no chance of the United States ratifying the comprehensive test-ban treaty (CTBT); opposition to the strengthening of the biological and toxin weapons convention (BTWC) and plans for an agreement to prevent the weaponisation of space; determination to avoid joining the International Criminal Court (ICC); and near-certainty that the US would withdraw from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty. In this context, the US’s sudden withdrawal from the Kyoto climate-change protocol - though it was most surprising to many European governments - was quite consistent with this overall approach.

Read the rest of this post...