What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
Special Issue: the Collapse of America
Paul Craig
Roberts gives CounterPunchers the definitive data on what is
happening to jobs in America. Not just blue collar jobs. Middle-class,
white collar jobs. Roberts'
stunning probe is the first true picture of what the U.S. economy
is fast becoming and of the savage class wars that lie ahead.
Plus Mike
Ferner on what it really means to investigate war crimes in Iraq. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers
each month! But
remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the
print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription
to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find
anywhere else, or by making a donation towards the cost of this
online edition.
Remember contributions are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
The
Brookings Institute Assumes the White Man's Burden
By RON JACOBS
The liberal warmongers are at it again.
In Sunday's (August 20, 2006) Washington Post, Ken Pollack and
Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution and Georgetown's Center
for Peace and Security Studies offer an analysis and prescription
for an Iraq that they believe is already in a state of civil
war. Ignoring the fundamental reason that this situation exists--the
US occupation of the country--these two men tell the reader that
the growing sectarian violence in Iraq will be even more dangerous
should it spill over Iraq's borders. Furthermore, they argue,
the latter will eventually occur. This fact alone means that
US responsibilities in the region will increase, not lessen.
Prior to this prognostication,
the two men write that it would take close to a half-million
soldiers to "quash an all-out civil war there." There
is no other alternative offered by these imperial apologists,
and this statement is qualified by stating that this is more
than the US has already committed. It's not that Pollack and
Byman actually call for US troops to be mobilized for these increasing
"responsibilities." It's that they write as if there
were no alternatives, since in their minds the so-called responsibilities
are not ones that Washington chooses to undertake because it
sees its empire as being essential to the peace of the world.
Unsaid in this do-gooder approach is that the only peace Washington
and its apologists (neocon to neoliberal and beyond) want is
one that benefits Washington and its corporate masters. If that
peace takes a world war, then by god, that's what will have to
happen, but only because its for the world's good.
Meanwhile, from another corner
of the imperial ring, on that same Sunday John McCain called
for many more US troops in Iraq. During a conversation on "Meet
the Press," Mr. McCain said that the US must win in Iraq.
Otherwise, he added, there would be chaos in the region. If I
had been sitting in the interviewer's chair in the NBC studio
that morning, I would have had to ask Mr. McCain what word he
might use to define the current situation in Iraq. Democracy?
Peaceful transition? Order? From where I sit, the current situation
in Iraq is the definition of chaos. The addition of more US troops
would only create more, especially since Mr. McCain wants them
to go after not only the Sunni and secular insurgency; he also
wants them to go after the Shia militias. Now that's a recipe
for calm.
I recently finished reading
John Talbott's 1980 book on the French war in Algeria, The
War Without a Name. Instructive for its similarities to Iraq--
both in the methods of the insurgents and the reaction of the
French--there is a description of the situation seemed particularly
appropriate.
What these wishful thinkers
ignored...were realities that lay beyond the quantitative measurements
of success. They mistook pledges of allegiance made under duress
for pledges freely given. The mistook peasants keenly aware of
their own self-interest for credulous country bumpkins....They
mistook promises made against the future as adequate compensation
for injuries done in the past. They underestimated the difference
between coercion at the hands of foreigners and coercion at the
hands of neighbors and relatives; they underestimated how long
it might take ever to come to an end of the rebellion. (p. 191)
It's not my goal here to equate
the insurrection in Algeria against the French with the insurgency
in Iraq against the US. However, there are some important similarities.
Like Iraq, the insurgents in Algeria fought sectarian battles
amongst themselves while they were fighting the occupier. In
addition, there were factions within the insurgency that were
secular and some that were religious in nature. Indeed, the civil
strife in Algeria during the 1990s and early 21st century between
the government and Islamist forces had some of its roots in the
conflicts between these factions during the war against the French.
More importantly for the US, the methods used by the French in
their attempts to defeat the insurgents included many of the
same used by the US in Iraq: torture, puppet governments, vote
manipulation and warfare that included the killing of civilians.
In addition, most of the French establishment shared the imperial
view that the Algerians couldn't do without Paris' guidance--benevolent
or otherwise.
So, with Mr. McCain and the
Bush people from the right and the Brookings Institution from
the liberal side of the spectrum sharing the assumption that
Washington's "accidental" empire has a responsibility
to help out its Arab and Persian cousins, maybe the upcoming
months will see an increase in the US military presence in the
Middle East. If Israel restarts its war on Lebanon, it would
seem that the chances of this increase even more. Back in the
days when the British thought they ran this part of the world,
they called the people living there "wogs." Today,
the US soldiers, spies and mercenaries call them "hajis."
Both terms are means to make them appear less than human in their
minds. However, as history has shown, just because an occupier
underestimates the people whose land it is occupying doesn't
mean they will win their hearts, minds or land. No matter how
many troops and agents they employ.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
