Masters of Defeat: Retreating Empire and
Bellicose Bluster
by
James Petras / September 13th, 2008
Washington is forced to watch
other powers shape events.
– Financial Times,
August 25, 2008
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/masters-of-defeat-retreating-empire-and-bellicose-bluster/
Everywhere one looks, US imperial policy has suffered
major military and diplomatic defeats. With the backing of the Democratic
Congress, the Republican White House’s aggressive pursuit of a military approach to empire-building has led to a world-wide
decline of US influence, the realignment of former client rulers toward
imperial adversaries, the emergence of competing hegemons
and loss of crucial sources of strategic raw materials. The defeats and losses
have not dampened militaristic policies nor extinguished the drive for empire
building. On the contrary, both the White House and the Congressional
incumbents have embraced a hardening of military positions, reiterated a
confrontational style of politics and an increased reliance on overseas,
bellicose posturing to distract the domestic populace from its deteriorating
economic conditions. As the economic and political cost of sustaining the
empire increases, as the Federal government allocates hundreds of billions to
the crises-ridden financial sector and cuts tens of billions in corporate
taxes, avoiding collapse and recession, the entire economic burden is borne by
the wage and salaried class in the form of declining living standards, while 12
million immigrant workers are subject to savage police state repression.
The overseas failures and domestic crises however have not
led to progressive alternatives; the beneficiaries are overseas competitors and
the domestic elite. In large part where public opinion majorities have
expressed a desire or clamored for progressive alternatives, they have been
thwarted by political representatives linked to militarist ideologues and the
corporate elites.
Paradoxically the defeats and decline of US military
directed empire building has been accompanied by the retreat of the anti-war
movements in North America and Western Europe and the sharp decline of
political parties and regimes opposing US imperialism in all the advanced
capitalist countries. In other words, the defeats suffered by the US Empire
have not been products of the Western Left, nor have they led to a ‘peace
dividend’ or improved living standards for the working classes or peasants. To
the extent that there are beneficiaries, they are found largely among the newly
aspiring economic imperial countries, like China,
Russia and India, among the oil rich countries of the
Middle East, and especially among a broad swath of large agro-mineral export
countries like Brazil, South Africa and Iran, which have carved out
important niches in their region’s.
The growth and overseas expansion of the new economic
empire building countries and their agro-mineral-financial ruling classes (with
the possible exception of Venezuela)
have greatly benefited a tiny elite, comprising not
more than twenty percent of the population. The relative decline of US military
imperialism and the rise of new economic imperialist powers have redistributed
wealth and market share between countries
but not among classes within
the ascendant powers. While the militarists-Zionists-financial speculators rule
the US Empire, the new billionaire manufacturers, real estate speculators and
agro-mineral exporters rule the emerging economic empires.
The second paradox is found in the fact that the political forces militarily defeating
the US
military-centered empire are not the forces benefiting from the struggle.
While the Iraqi and Afghan resistance has imposed almost a
trillion dollar cost on the US Treasury and tied down over 2 million rotating US troops over the past six years, it is the
Chinese, Indian, Russian, European, Gulf Oil and financial ruling classes which
have reaped the benefits from massive US non-productive expenditures.
While the new economic beneficiaries are, in large part, secular, imperial and
elitist, the politico-military forces undermining and defeating the US military
empire are religious (Islamic), nationalist and mass-based.
The contemporary defeats of US military empire building are not a product of Western, secular, mass leftist
movements. Nor do they result in a progressive, egalitarian society. Instead we
have fast-growing highly unequal economies, led by ruling classes promoting
their own ‘national’ versions of free market/neo-liberal strategies, which
maximize profits through economic exploitation of labor, resource extraction
and pillage of the environment. Until the mass movements, intellectuals and
activists of the West break from their passivity and blind allegiance to the
existing major parties, the defeat of US
militarism will be a costly burden assumed by the masses of the Third World while the benefits will accrue to the rising
new billionaire economic imperialists.
The Geography of
Imperial Failures and Retreat
Middle East: Iraq
and Iran
The ascendancy of military-directed empire building in the
US
has once again put into evidence its utter incapability to impose a new
imperial order. After six and a half years of war and occupation in Iraq, the US has suffered enormous military
casualties and over half a trillion in economic losses, without securing any
political or military or natural resource gains. The losses from the war have
generated domestic opposition to US military intervention,
undermining current and future imperial military capacity. Even the
US-designated puppet ruler in Iraq,
Al Maliki, has demanded a set date for US withdrawal. US client
Afghan President Karzai has called for greater
oversight over US military operations which have killed thousands of
non-combatants and civilians, thus deepening and extending support for the
national resistance which now operates throughout the country.
For those in the US, particularly on the ‘Left’ who
mistakenly argued that the invasion of Iraq was a ‘war for oil’ (rather than a
war in support of Israeli hegemonic ambitions), Iraq’s signing of a $3 billion
dollar oil contract with the China National Petroleum Corporation in late
August 20081 demonstrates
the contrary, unless one wishes to revise the slogan to ‘US War for Chinese
Oil.’ In the 6 years since the US
invaded Iraq, US oil
companies have still failed to secure major oil deals.
On October 4-5, 2008, Shell, one of the world’s biggest petroleum
multinationals and OMV, an Austrian energy corporation will sponsor a
conference in Tehran
under the auspices of the National Iranian Gas Export Company to promote ‘gas
export opportunities and potentials of the Islamic Republic of Iran.’ This conference
is simply one more example of the role of major petroleum companies attempting,
through peaceful means, to build their overseas holdings (‘economic empire’).
The major opposition to this ‘oil for peace’ move on the part of Shell Oil came
from the leading Jewish-Zionist promoter of US engaging in Middle East wars for
Israel — the Anti-Defamation League, which criticized Big Oil. According to its
two principle leaders, Glen Lewy and Abe Foxman, “…these two companies are co-sponsoring a
conference with the state-owned energy company of the leading state-sponsor of
terrorism and human rights violator. Bu promoting one of Iran’s strategic industries, natural gas, OMV
and Shell are hindering the effort of responsible states (sic) and corporations
to isolate Iran.”
The conflict between Shell/OMV and a leading American
Zionist-Jewish organization highlights the fundamental conflict between
economic-centered empire building and military-centered empire building. The
fact that Shell and OMV went ahead with the Iranian conference shows that at
least some sectors of the oil industry are finally beginning to challenge the
stranglehold that Zionist-militarists have over US Middle East policy. After
having lost tens of billions of dollars in lucrative oil contracts thanks to
Zionist-dictated policies , the oil companies are
finally taking the first tentative steps toward formulating a new policy.
By pursuing the Israeli-US Zionist agenda of sequential
wars and sanctions against oil-rich Muslim countries, Washington has lost access, control and
profits to global economic competitors in a strategic region.
Africa
In the African nation of Somalia Washington opted for
military intervention via the proxy Ethiopian dictatorial regime of Meles Zenawi to bolster the
discredited and defeated pro-US puppet regime of Abdullah Yusuf.
After almost 2 years the Ethiopian and the puppet regime only control a few
blocks of the capital, Mogadishu,
while the rest of the country is in the hands of the Somali resistance.
According to the Financial Times2, the Ethiopian
regime “expressed a desire to curtail its military engagement in Somalia.” The US surrogate has been militarily and politically
defeated; the US
failed to secure support for its proxy occupation from the African Union.
Throughout Africa, China, the EU, Japan, Russia and to a lesser degree India
and Brazil all have made inroads in securing joint ventures in oil, raw
materials export markets and large-scale, long-term infrastructure investments,
while the US backs armed separatists in the Sudan and subsidizes the corrupt Mubarak regime in Egypt for over a billion dollars a year.
Not only has the US empire
lost out economically to its global competitors, it has suffered a major
military-diplomatic defeat in Somalia
and severely politically and financially weakened its Ethiopian client.
South Asia
In South Asia, the US strategic puppet ruler, Pakistani
dictator Musharraf has been forced to resign — and
the weak and divided electoral coalition which has replaced him has not been
able to match the military, diplomatic and intelligence support for the US war
in Afghanistan which Musharraf provided. The
Pakistan-Afghan border is virtually open territory for cross border attacks,
recruitment and military supplies by Afghan resistance organizations. The
empire’s loss of Musharraf further undermines US
efforts to impose an outpost in Afghanistan.
Through frequent ground and air attacks on Pakistan
regions bordering Afghanistan, the US-NATO ‘coalition’ has multiplied, deepened
and made massive civilian political and armed opposition throughout the
country. The ‘election’ of the US
client and convicted warlord and thug, Asif Ali Zadari, as President of Pakistan, will not in anyway
contribute to the recovery of US influence outside of very limited elite
political and military circles. Washington’s
pursuit and extension of military imperialism from Afghanistan
to Pakistan has led to even
more severe political defeat among a much wider population in South
Asia.
Top NATO generals and officials have recognized that the
‘Taliban’ has reorganized and extended its influence throughout the country,
controlling most throughways to the major cities and even operating in and
around the capital Kabul. Repeated US bombing and missile strikes of civilian
housing, cultural events and markets have alienated vast numbers of Afghans and
led to widespread opposition to US
client ruler Karzai. The promises of both US
presidential candidates to vastly expand the US occupation forces in
Afghanistan upon taking office, will only prolong the war and deepen the
weakening of the economic empires and its domestic foundations.
Caucasus
Washington’s attempt to extend
its sphere of influence in the Caucasus
through a territorial grab by its authoritarian Georgian client, President Mikheil Saakashvili, led instead
to a profound defeat of the local satrap’s regional ambitions. The political
break and integration with Russia of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia represents the end of unrestricted expansion of the US and EU in
the region — and a rollback in contested terrain. The rash adventurism and
subsequent destruction of the Georgian economy by Saakashvili
has provoked widespread internal unrest. Worse still, Georgia, the US, and its
Eastern European clients call for ‘sanctions’ against Russia, threatens to
undermine Western European strategic energy supply lines, as well as end
Moscow’s collaboration with US military policies in Afghanistan, Iran, and the
Middle East. If Washington escalates its
military and economic threats to Russia,
the latter can provide Iran,
Syria and other US adversaries
with powerful middle range ultra-modern anti-aircraft missiles. Equally
important, Russia
can dump over $200 billion in US Treasury notes, further weaken the US dollar
and set in motion a global run in the currency.
In Georgia, as elsewhere, US military-centered empire
building gives priority to a failed marginal land grab by a third rate client
over lucrative strategic economic and military relations with one of the
world’s global oil and gas powers and a crucial collaborator in its ongoing
military operation in the Middle East. While US economic relations with Russia
crumble in the wake of its aggressive military encirclement of Moscow —
military bases in the Czech Republic, Poland, Georgia, Bulgaria, Rumania —
Western European empire builders resist making military threats in favor of
harsh rhetoric and ‘dialog’ in order to sustain strategic energy ties.
Middle East: Israel and the
Arabs
In the Middle East, the US
unconditional backing of Israeli military aggression in Lebanon, Palestine
and Syria, and US backing of
weak and ineffective Arab clients has led to a sharp decline in US influence.
In Lebanon,
since the defeat of the Israeli invasion in 2006, Hezbollah literally rules the
southern half of the country — and holds veto power within the national
government, reversing US client rule.
In Gaza,
US and Israeli
military attempts to seize power and oust Hamas via
its client Abbas and Dahlen were rounded defeated and
the independent nationalist movement led by Hamas
consolidated power.
Washington’s effort to regain its influence and improve
its image among conservative and moderate Arab rulers by ‘mediating’ a peace
agreement between Israel and Palestine in Annapolis in November 2007 was
utterly destroyed by Tel Aviv’s open and total repudiation of all the basic
conditions set forth by the Bush Administration. Washington
has no influence on Israel’s
colonial expansion. On the contrary, the US Middle East policy is totally
subject to the Israeli state through the Zionist Power Configuration and its
control over Congress, Presidential selection, the mass media and major
propaganda ‘think tanks’. The Zionists demonstrated their power by even
dictating who could or could not even speak at the Democratic National
Convention with the unprecedented censoring of former President James Carter
because of his humanitarian criticism of Israel’s policies toward the
Palestinians. Zionist-Israeli usurpation of US Middle East policy has led to
strategic losses of investments, markets, profits and partnerships for the
entire multi-national oil and gas industry.
The political fusion of imperialist militarists
confronting Russia
at the cost of strategic economic relations and Zionist-militarists pursuing
Israeli regional power has led to multiple failed military adventures and
tremendous global economic losses.
The Western
Hemisphere
The application of the militarist strategy as well as the
relative decline of economic hegemony has led to strategic defeats and failures
in the Western Hemisphere. In late 2001, Washington challenged
and threatened to take reprisals against President Chavez for refusing to
submit to Bush’s ‘war on terror.’ Chavez at the time informed a bellicose
representative of the State Department (Grossman) that, “We don’t fight terror
with terror.” Less than 6 months later in April 2003, Washington backed a failed military coup and
between December 2002 to February 2003, a failed bosses lockout. The failure of
the US militarist strategy
devastated Washington’s
military and ruling class clients, and radicalized the Chavez Government. As a
consequence, the Venezuelan leader proceeded to nationalize oil and petrol
sectors and develop strategic ties with countries that compete with or oppose
the US Empire, such as, Cuba,
Iran, China and Russia. Venezuela
signed strategic economic agreements in Latin America with Argentina, Bolivia,
Ecuador, Cuba and Nicaragua. While Washington
poured over $6 billion dollars in military
aid to Colombia, Venezuela signed petrol and gas investment and
trade agreements with most of the Central American and Caribbean countries,
severely challenging Washington’s
influence in the region.
High commodity prices, booming Asian markets, unacceptable
US tariffs and subsidies led to the relative independence of Latin America’s
‘national capitalist’ regimes, who embraced ‘neo-liberalism’ without the
constraints of the IMF or the dictates of Washington. In these circumstances
the US lost most of its
leverage — except Colombia’s
military threats — to pressure Latin America to isolate Chavez — or even Cuba. Washington’s military
strategy led to its self-isolation.
Overseas Consequences of Failed
Military Strategies
Isolation in Latin American can not be overcome because
Washington’s pursuit of empire via prolonged military aggression — in the rest
of the world and in Latin America — can not compete with the profits, wealth,
investment and trade opportunities offered to the ruling classes of Latin
America by the new markets in Russia, the Middle East, Asia and by oil rich
Venezuela.
Washington’s militarist imperial
strategy is evident in its dual policies: Prioritizing the spending of $6
billion in military aid to repressive Colombia
while sacrificing $10 billion in trade, investments and profits with oil rich Venezuela.
Washington has spent over $500 billion in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq;
billions are spent in war preparations against Iran; over $3 billion annually
for Israel’s military; all the time losing hundreds of billions of dollars in
trade and investment with Latin America.
The most striking aspect of this historical contrast is
that the military spending embedded in military-centered empire building has
failed even its minimum goal of gaining political control, military outposts
and strategic resources for war. In contrast, global market competitors have
secured access and control over strategic economic resources, and signed
lucrative political co-operation agreements without costly military
commitments.
Domestic Consequences
of Failed Military-Driven
Empire Building
The cost of military-Zionist driven empire building to the
domestic economy has been devastating: Competitiveness has declined, inflation
is eroding living standards, employment with stable living wages is
disappearing, unemployment and loss of jobs is skyrocketing, the financial
system is disconnected from the real economy and on the verge of collapse, home
foreclosures are reaching catastrophic levels and taxpayers are being bled to
death to bail out the trillion dollar home mortgage debt speculators. Political
malaise is widespread. In the midst of system-wide crisis, an emerging police
state has taken hold: thousands of legal and undocumented immigrant workers
have been seized at their factories and detained in military camps away from
their children. Muslim and Arab associations are raided and prosecuted on the
bases of paid informers, including hooded Israeli ‘witnesses.’ The federal and
local police practice ‘preventative detention’ of activists and journalists
prior to the Presidential conventions, seizing protestors before they can
exercise their constitutional rights and systematically destroying the cameras
and tapes of citizens attempting to document abuses. Failed military
imperialism brings in its wake a burgeoning police state — backed by both
political parties — in the face of economic crises which threatens
the political and social foundations of the empire.
Conclusion
The economic crisis in the run up to the Presidential
elections has not led to the emergence of a mass based progressive alternative
candidate. Both the Democratic and Republican contenders promise to prolong and
extend the imperial wars and submit to unprecedented Israeli-Zionist military
dictates with regard to Iran.
Crises and military defeats have not led to a re-thinking
of global economic and military commitments. Instead we witness a right-wing
radicalization, which seeks to escalate confrontations with China, Russia
and Iran.
The US draws in its wake the
client regimes of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus and Baltic regions to counter
Western Europe’s emphasis on ‘economic-centered’
empire building.
The reality of a multi-polarized
economic world however undermines US efforts to impose a bipolar
military confrontation. China
holds $1.2 trillion dollars in US
debt. Western Europe, in general, depends on over one-third of its energy for
its homes, offices and factories from Russia. Germany
relies on Russia
for almost 60% of its gas. The economies of Asia: Japan,
India, China, Vietnam
and South Korea all depend
on oil from the Middle East and not on the Middle East
war plans of the Israeli-American militarists.
Brazil, Russia, India,
China, South Africa, Venezuela
and Iran
are essential to the functioning of the world economy. In the same way that the
US-Israel-United Kingdom cannot support their empire on
the bases of failed military strategies abroad and economic disaster and police
state policies at home.