Masters of
Defeat:
Retreating Empire and Bellicose Bluster
James Petras – September 2008
“Washington is forced to watch other powers shape events”
(Financial Times
August
25, 2008)
Introduction
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 2008 (Financial
Times August 28, 2008) 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 Teheran 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 Times (August 28, 2008), 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 Mushareff 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 Mushareff
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 Mushareff 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.