from a Turkish/Greek perspective. The article is very long, and I don't expect everyone to read the whole thing. I'll try to summarize.
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=commentary&alt=&trh=20040918&hn=12360
What's missing from any Iraq War discussion is the larger global and historical context of our Iraqi adventure. An analyst living on the fringes of the Middle East ties the Balkans, Iraq, Afganistan and the Caucasus together and places them within the context of the US blueprint: "The Greater Middle East Initiative." Why is this relevant? Because this initiative is surely at the heart of the Neo-Con analyses which got us into this mess in the first place. The author astutely notes that the actual intiative is a fraud, a cheap piece of propaganda with no teeth behind it. When American politicans have broached it, the initiative has been described as a tool for spreading democracy to the region, and in the past, the UN and the EU have largely ascribed to it for that reason. The author notes however, that in practice, the initiative is really only a projection of military power, especially as it seeks to protect the West's supply of oil. The analyst also traces the thinkings behind this plan over 20-25 years, and places our Balkans endeavours under the scope of the plan.
Here's why I posted this in a diary just a month or so before the election. We talk about whether it was proper to invade Iraq, but we never actually question the larger context in which the invasion is playing out. In other words, we rarely ever talk about Imperialism in the Middle East. We only talk about the propriety of taking out Saddam post 9/11. Well, as the blueprints for this invasion surely show, there is a larger context, and this initative's positions were staked out prior to 9/11 by the NeoCons. Israel and Turkey are definitely considerations in this grand strategy, as is Russia and Saudi Arabia. At some point, Americans will have to get around the grand machinations which are currently afoot. Because the only way these dreams can be realized is by constant war over the next 20-25 years.
Well, guess what? The War on Terror has been billed as exactly that.
Frankly, I'm concerned that the War on Terror is just a lever in this pre 9/11 plan, and that 9/11 is the best thing that ever happened to the Greater Middle East Initiative. Permanent War will help the Imperialists achieve their goals.
I realize that's a bold statement, but then again, Wolfowitz and Co. have written some pretty bold position papers.
This election is so important not only because it determines the fate of civil rights in the US and of the war in Iraq, but it will prove once and for all whether Americans truly have the stomach for global empire. If Americans can stomach 1,000 dead Americans in a year of Iraq, or 20,000 dead Iraqis, then we may indeed be able to stomach another few years of war in Syria and the Caucasus. Who knows what happens after that?
On the other hand, if we say no, then the dream of empire may turn to dust.
As for the election, I was for John Kerry from the very start, and I have to say that I've been following his career since the early 90's and I've been hoping that he would run as early as 1992. I've been a big fan of his. I'm behind him even though I believe that a John Kerry presidency would be something of a wild card. He is an economic moderate/conservative, as his balanced budget stance shows. But with regards to war and Imperialist objectives, he may surprise us and put a kibbosh on our machinations in the Middle East. He voted against the first Gulf War, he has fought against Iran Contra, he has generally tried to check the dangerous expansions of American influence. If I'm reading it right, his leanings may be against this sort of global empire, and I believe his Vietnam experience is formative in that thinking.
He's quite liberal when it comes to civil rights.
I'm not sure he would curtail our decades long expansion however, and I have to note that the Clinton people who are influencing his foreign policy (Holbrooke, J. Rubin, Albright) are all diplomatic types who strike me as more in line with Wolfowitz on the Greater Middle East initiative.
In conclusion, if Kerry is elected, I plan to really watch what he does vis-a-vis the Caucasus and the greater region. It is NOT beyond Democrats to push the boundaries of American imperialism further East. I think there's a good chance that Kerry will NOT conform to previous models. Post 9/11, it's important that we come to grips with our impulses in the War on Terror so that those impulses aren't used to propagate plans we would not be comfortable with if they were made plain and obvious.