In 1914, when the door closed on the Old World in the days between June 28th and August 4th, all sides believed the conflict was inevitable. Treaties or not, it was their chance to finally recapture lost honor, lost territory, to force a respect for an empire, or maintain the primacy of another. They had absolute confidence in their strategic plans -- as much as any necon's belief in America's primacy through force, or eschatological `christian' dreams of rapture and the all-encompassing judgment of a retributive god.
*
I wanted to offer a few observations - hardly a reasoned analysis. But what may come from the expansion of war in the Middle East already has visible trails leading back to the beliefs of its creators -- making clearer the possible futures we face, and why our coming elections are the real litmus test of what America's actual future will be.
*
The policy of the current government of the United States towards the present war in Lebanon appears to be a calculated pause, with no real effort to stop the killing. Attach any reason you'd like to it, but the flat fact is: Our government could decisively bring the current conflict to an end, and will not. In fact, our current government has rushed to fill an Israeli munitions order, purchased from the U.S. months ago, before this particular phase in the conflict started. Clearly, the depth of the Cheney administration's commitment is self-evident - if not to peace, then to something else.
But finally, now that a suggestion to act was made to the peevish dullard, Ms. Rice will pause in browsing through a Ferragamo catalog and saunter to the region to make clipped, intellectual noises before microphones while the wreckage of south Beirut still smolders.
(Sunday update: Josh Marshall quotes Wayne White, Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Middle East and South Asia Analysis until March 2005, regarding the strategy of Rice's eventual travel to the Middle East:)
I believe [Rice's] activities have been tailored to give the impression of action while not designed to make any real progress toward the urgent ceasefire that should be everyone's highest priority.
At the United Nations, Bolton will continue to stifle any serious UN action and `step on' Kofi Anan as long as he's told.
Apparently, the Cheney administration's intent is to allow the IDF a free hand in Lebanon and Gaza. They may believe allowing a wider conflict can pull some focus away from American troops in Iraq by diverting `jihadist' men and materiel against Israel. They may see an "opportunity" to destabilize Syria, removing the Assad government, disrupting Hezbollah and Iranian influence in the region -- all a part of what the peevish dullard has said is his declared and god-driven "mission" - to bring "democracy" to the world.
This display of the depth of cynicism in America's neocon Realpolitik, on top of all the others the world has had to endure in five years, is not lost on other governments or other people. But the current government of the United States has been looking for this kind of "opportunity" - and with this massive escalation of violence in the Middle East, it could fairly be said (to quote Winston Churchill in another context), "Ah, this is not the end; it is not even the Beginning of the end. But it may be the End of the beginning."
*
Ted Koppel, in an Op-Ed piece for this Sunday's New York Times (7/23/06) notes:
...a senior Jordanian intelligence official [spoke to Koppel, reflecting] gloomily on the failure of the Bush administration's various policies ... his greatest contempt [was] for the policy of encouraging democratic reform. "For the Islamic fundamentalists, democratic reform is like toilet paper," he said. "You use it once and then you throw it away." ...
[The intelligence official then listed] recent democratic highlights in the region. Gaza and the West Bank, where Hamas, spurned by the State Department as a terrorist organization, was voted into power last spring and now represents the Palestinian government; Lebanon, where Hezbollah, similarly rejected by the United States, has become the most influential political entity in the country; and, of course, Iraq, where the Shiite majority has now, through elections, gained political power commensurate with its numbers.
In each case ... the beneficiary of those electoral victories is allied with and, to some degree, dependent upon Iran. Over the past couple of months alone ... Hamas has received more than $300 million in cash, provided by Iran and funneled through Syria.
What the current United States government has done is to commit to throwing all the jigsaw pieces up in the air, and they seem absolutely certain that they have already predicted where the pieces will ultimately land. Or, if they don't fit, can be made to do so with enough force.
However, that kind of arrogance ignores how the Middle East is culturally structured - around sects, tribes, clans and families. The agony of Lebanon during the 70's and 80's, and the current civil war in Iraq might teach that the now visible disintegration of Iraq's culture could be replicated in any Arabic country the United States decides should be "democratized".
Billmon, in his usual insightful if snake-hating commentary*, offers this concise analysis on the growing instability of the Middle East - a tiger which the neocons have forced the world to ride, while claiming we're all traveling in a Lexus:
"There is a passage in Kanan Makiya's book Republic of Fear that has haunted me ever since I read it. I've quoted it before to explain why I expected nothing but horror from the "liberation" of Iraq. It describes what happened in the summer of 1959 in the city of Mosul (a patchwork of ethnic, religious, tribal and class distinctions, then and now):
For four days and four nights Kurds and Yezdis stood against Arabs; Assyrian and Aramean Christians against Arab Moslems; the Arab tribe of Albu Mutaiwat against the Arab tribe of Shammar; the Kurdish tribe of al-Gargariyyah against Arab Albu Mutaiwat; the peasants of the Mosul country against their landlords; the soldiers of the Fifth Brigade against their officers; the periphery of the city of Mosul against the center; the plebians of the Arab quarters of Al-Makkawi and Wadi Hajar against the aristocrats of the Arab quarter of ad-Dawwash; and within the quarter of Bab al-Baid, the family of al-Rajabu against its traditional rivals, the Aghawat. It seemed as if all social cement dissolved and all political authority vanished.
"I think the same passage can be used to illustrate the dynamic currently at work across the Middle East -- not entirely as a result of the Iraq invasion and the botched occupation that followed, but certainly much the worse for it. Outside of Iraq the social and political cement hasn't dissolved yet (although the Palestinian territories are getting close and Lebanon is always vulnerable) but the strains are enormous and growing."
(* Snake reference = Inside Joke)
That disintegration, the failure of the neocons, appears in ten-second clips on our television screens, nightly - car bombs and bleeding women in Baghdad; for us, the momentary horror in an electronic image, but a very different experience for Baghdad's citizens -- over one hundred grieving, extended families every week, now. Or, a silent parade of photographs of American servicemen and women killed, off our HDTV screens in a few minutes, while their loss echoes through the five, or twelve, or nineteen, or 2,500-plus extended families of our dead.
How complete the failures of the neocons have become can be gauged by what force actually replaces the government we have 'taken out' (as our current government did in Iraq and would like to do in Teheran). The only group who can take advantage of a fractured Arabic society are radical Islamics. Compared with their unifying appeal to religious belief, and against a background of torture, airstrikes, and military power, ideas of "democracy" appear as substantial as toilet paper; Makiya is right.
Neoconservative geopolitics, which were the golden calf for the current pack of our leaders, made the invasion of Iraq inevitable. In March of 2003, the joke amongst these people was, "Real men go to Teheran". Now, in the light of events over the past week, the march to Iran also seems closer. It may ultimately mean, without question, a wider war -- more destruction, more death, and an assurance that the cycle of revenge and violence will continue on a wider scale - and for five years, or ten, or fifty.
Why? Beyond psychosis, why would anyone consider expanding the circle of death and loss? What could possibly be considered as a justification?
*
It is more than just a possibility that the current United States government has made projections about our future -- visions which serve the interests of the two main groups in control of that government.
The practical men -- neocon theorizers and their allied think-tanks - predict that the geopolitical future is grim. Their analysis revolves around political currents, a shrinking availability and access to raw materials, together with predicted climatic change.
In a few decades or less, so this perspective plays out, the world will be a physical and ideological battleground. The access to crude oil, continued rise in oil prices and their effect on transport, trade and the price of consumer goods; in the United States, an increase in damage, dislocated populations, and insurance claims from larger and more powerful storms; the potential rise in global sea levels; the impact of higher average temperatures on American agricultural production - any one of these situations will exacerbate our already precarious economic situation.
The immediate war is against a fundamentalist and totalitarian vision of Islam, in the physical manifestation of Iran, and the shadowy Al-Qaeda. The Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russia, are real, strategic enemies on the horizon - but suppressing and defeating the immediate threat from a radical and murderous vision of Islam has to be the U.S.'s goal. From this perspective, the United States must act.
The Iranians have already tied absolute autonomy in developing their nuclear industry to a political victory over a hostile West, led by America. The neocon's response has already been that the Iranians cannot be trusted, and demands are made of the Iranians which they cannot meet without losing face and influence in the Arabic world - deliberately, because the neocon intent is "regime change" in Teheran, one way or another.
Politically, the current United States government cannot accept an Iranian "win". It will not, given the threat from Al-Qaeda or other Islamic groups, accept any Arabic nation manufacturing weapons-grade material which has perceived ties to terrorism.
Even more critical, should the Iranians' intent to create a Middle Eastern oil bourse and attempt to force control of that commodity's markets from New York and the U.S. Dollar to Teheran and the Euro, in geopolitical terms it would mean domination of (at present) the most important commodity on the planet by a government hostile to the United States. This would be unacceptable, for America and potentially for other governments as dependant upon petroleum as we are.
The necons point to any one, or all, of these circumstances as having potentially fatal effects on our economy. Privately, the neocons don't lie to themselves -- our National Debt, now nearly Nine Trillion Dollars, or an increase of almost one-third since 2003, will ultimately force a choice between guns and butter - the collapse of America's economy, or an abandonment of our Global War On Terror; our military presence in the Middle East and control to access of its natural resources.
It will also mean the end of American geopolitical dominance, which we will not be able to regain; we won't be able to afford it. Potentially, the neocons believe, it could mean the beginning of the end of the United States itself. With that worldview, we have to act forcefully, dominate the game board, now -- while the United States still has economic ability, political will, and the assets to do so.
*
Another group influencing the actions of our current government are our own religious fundamentalists. They believe in specific prophesies in the Book of Revelations which must be fulfilled in order to bring about the Second Coming of Christ. The reestablishment of the `kingdom' of Israel in 1948 was critical in that eschatology- but also a final, major condition: Rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem.
It's difficult to overestimate the importance a belief in the End Times has for those Christians who accept scripture literally. The End Times would mean not only that their central, core assumptions about reality are correct, but it would validate their very existence as human beings. Many Christians (including those whose politics are informed by the `preaching' of a Dobson or a Robertson, and who avidly await the latest Left Behind installment) hunger for Revelation as written to begin.
The Temple Mount is home to places revered in both Christian and Muslim traditions - and for Solomon's Temple to be rebuilt, Muslim holy places would have to be razed. That cannot occur if Israel ceases to exist. However, the `christians' who militantly support Israel because of its "historical" position in their faith aren't particularly concerned about Jews in Israel or anywhere (who, not having accepted Christ, will be cast down in the `final judgment'). Their intent is to support Israel and so bring about what they are certain is the will of the god they believe in.
Bush, cynically or not, has courted and delivered the religious Right for the Republican party in 2000 and 2004. He is seen by many `christians' as one of their own. The neocons in the Cheney administration have accepted the reality of a partnership with fundamentalists, and the reverse is also true. Each side in this alliance, however, thinks it can manipulate and control the other.
[To paraphrase Tolkien in Lord Of The Rings, 'It is hard to know when these wizards are doing evil, or merely cheating each other.']
But the fundamentalist's influence at the highest level of the current government -- and the continued belief by the GOP's leaders and backers that the religious Right is indispensable to electoral victory -- will ensure their continued access to power. It also means money in the form of lobbyist cash (laundered through various front groups as was done by Abramoff, Reed, and others), or Federal funding for "faith-based" activities.
And where anything involving the Middle East is concerned -- support for Israel, or for tour and vacation communities being built there by a consortium of American 'ministries' -- their voices will be heard, no matter what their effect to actual human beings in the real world may be. What happens to people does not matter to them; only the 'greater good' of ushering in the final judgment of their god.
*
A Pentagon spokesman recently admitted that the United States will have to maintain a serious military presence in Iraq for at least a decade; the huge bases built there by Haliburton are not temporary facilities. The peevish dullard never tires of saying we have to expect a long and difficult struggle with an implacable enemy.
There is no way the United States will be able to "defeat" Al-Qaeda and its spin-offs militarily, even if we increase the offensive capability of paramilitary and intelligence resources. Even if we rely on the repressive police and security forces of other countries. These were lessons of Vietnam, and if we haven't learned them, others who can exploit our historical amnesia do remember.
We need a wide spectrum of options based more in truth and compassion - but by continuing to rely on political bullies to lead, military brute force, and negotiations only from a position of dominance, we will suffer a long, bloody war that will include violence within the Continental United States.
A change in the fundamental approach of America's government, even now, could avoid more suffering and death, and increase our options to deal with our domestic as well as international issues. But to find that path, you first have to believe in it -- and neither of the groups comprising our current government appears to want an option that does not lead to a grim, or apocalyptic, conclusion.
Depending upon events in the next three months, we may have to admit the possibility that our current government believes no other political party or cultural group in the country can be entrusted to lead America. They feel too much is at stake to leave our future to chance, and only the current government -- or one with many of the same players -- can make the `difficult choices' necessary for America's survival ... though survival as what, they're not really able to say.
Past this point, we wear tinfoil hats. It does bear repeating that the same neocon and radical fundimentalist groups are facing the real possibility that the Republican party may lose control of the Senate and the House in November. The 2000 Presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court -- but a thorough vote count in Florida would have given America a different history since January of that year. The 2004 Presidential election ended with an arguably questionable vote in Ohio. Draw your own conclusions.
What happens on November 5th will be watched closely - and for different reasons, not only in America.
*
In the new edition of his book, The Battle For Spain, Anthony Beevor made an observation about that country, just prior to its disintegration into civil war and fascism, which is worth noting (Penguin Paperback edition 2006, p.9):
Although there may have been a vicious rivalry between liberals and conservatives...there was virtually a gentleman's agreement between their leaders in the capital... The two parties resembled those little wooden men who appear alternately to announce the weather. But any high-minded figure who denounced the corruption... was regarded as a traitor and shunned...
Even the tawdry end of [a war overseas] did not rouse the rulers from their myopic complacency. They could not admit that the obsession with empire had ruined the country... This refusal to face reality started to come up against new political forces, which... developed into the clash which later tore the country apart.
Keep working for candidates who are reasonable and sane adults. Work and pray for peace.
