US HYPER-MUSCLE / A Balance Of Power Of One. Is Might Always Right?

US HYPER-MUSCLE / A Balance Of Power Of One. Is Might Always Right? - Mag. Michael McNeill.

Let us deal with the first real considered criticism so often levied at opponents of current US foreign policy, especially in regard to pre-emptive military intervention and the most recent war in Iraq (and until recent months apparent ambitions on the part of the US administration to widen its actions in the Middle East to possibly include Iran, Syria and Lebanon).

Supporters of the Bush administration state that military action is plainly justifiable as it directly supports American ideals of "freedom" and that those who criticise this policy haven't fully appreciated this point. For if essential freedoms (taken for granted by the peoples of "The West") such as, freedoms of speech and the right to public protest were some how removed, current criticisms of US foreign policy would simply be put down. Such tyrannical conditions had existed in Iraq for years under Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi people were "liberated" by US armed intervention. This may be a fairly honourable position, but was not the reason why US forces invaded the sovereignty of Iraqi soil. Certainly most analysts would concur that the average Iraqi may ultimately be better off 'freed' from the oppressive rule of the Hussein regime (although this is not guaranteed if, at a later date, the very people themselves vote in to being a new theocratic-autocracy after the democracy-law-enforcers have gone). However, the real reason (stated by the US administration) for invading Iraq was to continue the "War On Terrorism", bringing the war to the terrorists who had apparently declared war on the US by felling the World Trade Centre and wholly damaging the Pentagon and butchering thousands of innocents both in the air and on the ground.

The initial war in Afghanistan, ousting the fundamentalist Taliban regime, was an immediate reaction and show of strength on the part of the US reasserting its powerfulness upon the world community and promising "liberty" at the same time. 'Going after the terrorists and hunting them down' was deemed to be a necessary action if the world was to be made a safer place and thereby protecting American homeland security interests. If such action required felling a state believed to be harbouring terrorists (declared enemies of the USA - including Osama Bin Laden - seen as the link man for the double atrocities on US soil) then so be it as far as US policy dictated. States were forewarned that if they continued to work with terrorists and provide succour to their fundamentalist designs of a terrorised world community then they would indeed pay a heavy price for such misdemeanours. The double atrocities of September 11 had the potential to undermine US self-belief (which had not been so affronted since the attacks on Pearl Harbour, 1941) so a relatively quick and mighty reprisal was considered necessary to bolster US public confidence and at the same time demonstrate to the world that the US was indeed the most powerful state on the planet and not to be tampered with. Yet, this was NOT the first United States of America intervention within the territory of Afghanistan.

Previously during the era of the Carter administration the US had already intervened to bring down the reformist government of the People's Democratic Party (under the leadership of Noor Mohammed Taraki). This first American intervention in Afghanistan PRE-dated the subsequent intervention on the part of the Soviet military. Almost immediately after the PDP coalition came to power the CIA, assisted by Saudi and Pakistani military, launched a large scale engagement within the territory of Afghanistan - deliberately supporting the feudal war-lords, tribal chieftains and drug barons in their own attempts to regain control over the country. Hafizulla Amin (a man believed to be directly sanctioned by the CIA) led a coup in September 1979, attempted the dissolution of social reforms within the country and murdered and exiled those who opposed his pursuit for a fundamentalist Islamic state. The embattled PDP clung to power and in desperation requested direct Soviet military assistance in its fight against the mujahideen Islamist guerrillas and their foreign cohorts (who were being deliberately armed, trained and financed by the CIA). The CIA-supported mujahideen (bent upon installing a more radical Islamic state) got much greater support from the US directly after the intervention of the Soviets. The CIA then helped to recruit, train and supply around 100, 000 radical mujahideen from several countries. In its number the Saudi-born elite Osama bin Laden and his company! After a harrowing war the Soviets forsook Afghanistan and eventually the PDP government was rent-through.Afghanistan fell to tribal gangsterism as its form of "administration" with the propagation of drugs the work demanded of the people by local overlords and the basic need to feed their families. Not satisfied with the outcome of their initial intervention the US, in its second intervention (supported by the Pakistani authorities) decided to give their powerful support to one particularly extremist element of Sunni Islam - the Taliban. Even by 1999 American administration authorities were paying the "salaries" of all Taliban government officials. The Bush administration did not even acknowledge the brutal practices of the US supported Taliban regime until after 9/11 !! Dispatching the Taliban may, is some political analysts eyes have brought a great body-blow to terrorists formally supported by the Taliban regime. However, others would point to the fact that this new crusade has only served to radicalise the bereaved aspirations of a historically under-trodden Islamic community and act as a wonder-recruitment vehicle for new anti-Western operatives and bring to reality further wars of miragy.

You may think that this is bad news for the US hyperpower and its helpers. It is NOT! The war on terrorism has been essentially for domestic US consumption post-9/11, supporting US-ism and providing the trumpeting of US bomb barrages abroad to help settle the American psyche at home, as well as to attempt to limit the possibility of further attacks on US soil. Yet, although the Bush administration is always chiming that action abroad has nothing to do with gaining control of fossil fuel reserves or to instil influence in regions which are rich in oil and gain favourable conditions in regard to those said oil reserves, it is clear to any "dog on the street" that that is indeed what US foreign policy is attempting to achieve and thus, a more useful reason for direct US intervention abroad is in fact to secure influence over the world's natural resources so enabling continued US consumption and inner-stability (and thereof power) to be assured for years to come. The war in Afghanistan was no mere shot in the dark. Of course, supported by world sympathy at the time and the US public it drove its power into the heart of what was supposed to be the core of international terror under Osama bin Laden (but then we have subsequently been told that he himself is irrelevant). However, more relevant is the relatively large oil reserves which are believed to be held within the bosom of the Caspian basin and which are now under more comprehensive US influence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The war in Iraq, the next venue to get the label of the central front on the war on terrorism has been the same story of US quasi-empiring. The story is familiar with the US having again given support (for former apparent Cold War reasons) to the parties that they now destroy. Saddam Hussein was formerly the man of the movement when he suited US interests and was supported comprehensively and given access to highly complex and destructive munitions, including weapons of mass destruction (WMD). So the story continues with a full-scale US assault on Iraq and the toppling of a tyrannical regime. The end, you may say. Not so. The fight against your chosen "terrorist" may have some salience, but is not the end of the matter. What is at issue is the regime moguls of America ensuring US profitability and its wealth-making future.

OUR problem, the problem of wider world community, is protecting world order and not merely because of disruptions imposed by theoretical and actual risks from 'your chosen terrorist', but more importantly from the threat of ongoing purely interest-based, (anti)internationalist conflict over narrowing world resources.

Solution. Increased internationalism, increased international respect and co-operation based on NON-EXCLUSIVE inter-communal interest based diplomacy and INTERNATIONAL LAW MAKING and respect by nations great and tiny for international HUMAN RIGHTS. We should make every effort to vote for government representatives willing to support the principles of INTERNATIONAL LAW and the principles of human rights and not merely act as puppies to (what I would describe as) Transnational Corporate Feudalism. Where the big money making concerns create foreign policy for apparently democratically elected administrations, such as, the USA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We the world community rarely learn from our history. Yes, both World Wars forced other states to take a position of either conquest or defence in what were gross and calamitous years, however, in these days of the "war" against 'your chosen terrorist' positions on whether MIGHT is right can not be readily defended. The neo-conservative moguls of influence in the corridors of power within the US administration may argue for the fist of continued and sustained revenge and power over 'their chosen terrorists', yet if we do consider the history of US, as well as, former colonial powers across the world we may bring to light a greater understanding of the political conditions which foster reactionarism and terroristic fervour. States should think clearly and act reasonably in the best interests of their whole population and in the support of world peace. The most powerful states have to consider well their use of MIGHT and not just assume that because they can react with all-powerfulness that this means that it will be necessarily good for the world community.