| Robert Frost |
Posted
on 15-Apr-03 05:25 PM
One question many people have asked around the world is this,
"Does this US victory on Iraq mean that from now on the US will decide that it can do what it likes, where it likes, when it likes, and nevermind what anybody else thinks?
My answer to this is No it cannot and its not possible to do that in every single ocassion.
There are people like Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Paul Wolfovitch who are very much ideologically minded and would like to project US military power around the world, but under the vast western public ideology it is not possible.
The US has a tried and proven formula - call a country terrorist, say it has weapons of mass destruction and then deploy shock and awe. That's what we're seeing here - they won't move in straight away, it will take a couple of years to stabilise Iraq sufficiently and then we will see a crisis materialise out of nowhere and they will move on Syria.
Let us examine this effect of nation to nation movement another 10-20 years from now:
On a decade into the future, we will be looking back at the September the 11th attack as the opening shots in the world war. In the war between liberal Democracists and radical Islams, another forces of disorder. A war that will have created splits among the liberal Democracists, for example between the US and Europe. And a war, a decade from now, we will probably won't know the outcome of.
I fear that the international multinational ties that have bound us together for so long will have been substantially loosened. NATO for example will have nothing more then Symbolic value. America will have seriously down graded the places of Europe and its overall International priorities. There is that distinct possibility that what America claims to be the "global war on terror", will not be over and it will not be won.
We are now plunged into period of global uncertainty and chaos. A potential risks even greater then the end of 1945, the WW2 and greater then the Cold War.
Within highly unstable world, dominated by United States, which still is unable to accept that it is an imperial power, little own knowing how to use its imperial power wisely.
There will be enormours pressure for the middle east countries to catch up with the vast westerns frontier, global superpowers, in terms of democracy, freedom of expression, trasparency of government, and all the other yards to expire by which we measure our lives. There will be growth in small-scale terrorism. Al-Qaida will have busted but there will be even more dangerous movements.
There is no doubt that there will be more anti-American feelings around the world. More to do with president Bush and more so with secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the way he wants to transforms US military. He wants to create a US military power that is able to project anywhere in the world at a moments notice where he feels US interest are noticed. What we are getting is a military push towards absolute and unchallengeable supremacy, coupled with idealogical commitment.
Yes, it is right to say that the sheer power of America to project its military supremacy around the world is unprecedented. But is that what the American public actually wants to do?
On my views, I dont think it wants to see its vast Army being stretched to more and more unilateral style operation, with America being seen by people throughout the world as the "aggressor" the "invador" defending its interest but in a very ugly arrogant way. If George Bush jr. goes down that route and is succeded by near to near neo-conservative fellow traveller, somebody who also listens to the Rumsfelds and Wolfovitch's of this world, eventually there will come a time when the US public says "enough! this is not what we want".
The game is up now for America. They just about got away with it in Iraq against public opinion because of Saddam's record. But Syria is a step too far that will bring mass public opinion worldwide against them. Where that will lead who knows? They are getting in a situation they cannot win.
All the US can do now is to moderate its imperial power. In Iraq, the military victory might have been won but the much much sterner tests is to make the success of the reconstruction of Iraq and its arguebly not very equipped to do that. There is much too small man-power to meet the immediate obligations.
There might be the beginning of the realization in terms of America, that they have taken a huge tasks, and if they fail to create or to help to create a stable democratic government of Iraq, within the next decade for example, then they might have had their power to some extent "wings clipped', and faded to deliever the peace, keeping in back of the mind the "not so encouraging" Afghanistan reconstruction.
"Use your source and history will be your witness".
Robert
|
