The collapse of Iraq was long
foretold and forewarned by those familiar with the salient issues. In some ways
these events are very apropos as we arrive at the 100 year anniversary of the
event that sparked World War I.
Some very naive and misguided men
broke up empires and re-drew long established maps and we're still dealing with
consequences.
Eleven years ago an American
president launched an invasion which pulverized the very precarious and
delicate balance that held the Middle East together. These events combined with
American policy in Central Asia and elsewhere destabilized the Middle East and
much of the world.
By 2011 the Middle East was in
turmoil and though the events were desperately spun by government agents in the
administration and the media, the Arab Spring was (for the American project)
something of a disaster if not a nightmare.
Perhaps the most shocking event
apart from the death of Gadaffi was the toppling of longtime American ally
Hosni Mubarak. Though the US also tried to spin this event it represented a
major catastrophe for American strategists and the Israeli allies.
A few years later we are
witnessing the undoing of the grass roots Arab Spring in Egypt and the
re-establishment of a military strongman who (though a bit perturbed with the
Americans) is nevertheless re-establishing the old relationship and
facilitating a return to status quo.
Syria is another story. Syria
like Iraq was created by the French and British in the wake of World War I as
they sought to carve up the Ottoman corpse. As Wilson's idealistic if not
devious shortsightedness contributed to chaos in Europe, French and English
scheming in the Ottoman lands helped create politically untenable states which
could only function under dictatorial rule.... and minority dictatorial rule at
that.
While I don't advocate American
intervention, I contend that if the Syrian uprising had occurred under Bush
there would be calls (from the Right) for intervention, because Obama is the
president there's a lack of zeal, energy and willingness for American involvement.
I think it's probably more about domestic politics than any kind of
geopolitical ideology. We saw similar tensions in the 1990's during the Clinton
tenure. With regard to Syria, there is no good solution and an Assad abdication
would lead to a bloodbath, ethnic cleansing and a likely genocide.
War begets war and decades of
western intervention and in particular more recent American foreign policy have
created a generation of violent radicalised young men. It has also antagonized
a resurgent Russia which also has interests in many of these fault zones.
Ironically it could be argued
that despite attempts to spin it positively Bush policy post-9/11 inadvertently
helped to provoke the largely anti-American Arab Spring. History will not be
kind to his administration. We have not yet tasted the ripened fruits of his
policies. While I think all American administrations are evil and while I am an
opponent of the American Beast, the Bush administration will rightly go down in
history as one of the most short-sighted, foolish, treacherous and murderous
that has been seen in many a generation.
Led by a bunch of scheming incompetents
and profiteers they opened a Pandora's Box of long simmering tensions and
animosities. A century from now 9/11 may be viewed like 1914 Sarajevo as an
event not very significant in and of itself, but titanic in terms of its
consequences for the world and the chain reaction it unleashed.
And now the Arab Spring has
created such instability that the region is quickly degenerating into ethnic
and civil war. The places most likely to see this are the heterogeneous and
artificial creations of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
The fallout and its
implications are hard to gauge. This is the very scenario that could lead to a
regional conflict. There are many tensions at work between Shia and Sunni,
Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Kurds and Turkey and various dynamics related to
Israel.
Ironically the crisis is
driving Turkey to abandon its nationalism and consider rapprochement with the
Kurds and much to the chagrin of the Saudis, the United States and Iran have a
common interest. The smashing of the old order means we're in for a trip down
the rabbit hole. While regional war may elude us in the immediate future, the
weakening and smashing of old alliances and alignments sets up the region for
future calamity.
But I expect reactionary
elements will have something to say before all is done or lost.
Is Obama at fault because he
pulled out American troops in 2011?
Obama's fault is probably
greatest in that he has perpetuated the policies of his predecessor and has in
fact expanded the so-called (and woefully immoral and ill-conceived) War on
Terror. He like many other American presidents has backed many corrupt
authoritarian strongmen and dictators.
As far as American troops...
Since the explosion of violence
in 2004 and the sectarian strife of 2006-2007 the United States had been
seeking a moment of calm in order to get out. Bush was no different in this
regard.
It must be remembered the Bush
administration had planned numerous invasions of other countries. They had
planned to topple Saddam, be greeted with flowers, leave a stabilization force
and move on to the next target. If things had gone his way he would have
toppled many regimes.
Bush was desperate to get out
of Iraq but could not pacify the situation until the very end of his
administration. Obama took the cue and started pulling out American troops. Anyone
who knows anything of the situation knew the stability could only be temporary.
Were the American troops going
to stay another ten or twenty years? That's what it would take. The country is artificial.
There has to be a 'strongman' running it. That can be in the form of a dictator
or an occupying army and yet no occupier will want to stay forever.
I imagine Obama hoped it would
hold until after his tenure. The relative peace in some ways lasted longer than
anyone thought it would. He will probably pursue a policy of using technology, Special
Forces, and select insertions to maintain the policy... a strategy suggested by
many American hawks at the outset of the War on Terror.
But in this case they have a
crisis and its moving quicker than US ability to respond. Western meddling in
the Middle East has after many generations created a growing radicalism that
may be difficult to stop and may indeed re-draw and thus undo the cartographic
creations of the European Imperial Age.
There's no threat to the United
States apart from economic interests. Gasoline prices will certainly climb. If
the oil industry plays its card right, they stand to make even greater profits.
But despite all the clamour there is no existential threat to the United
States.
It's been 100 years. What will
the next century bring? It's hard to imagine.
The horizon is very hazy but
things are shaping up that to the historical mind are eerily familiar and
disturbing. The conditions are being replicated (in modified form) which led to
both an American Civil War and the Great War of 1914.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
