Vanishing American Footprint
With his order to effect the execution of Osama bin Laden by Navy SEALs, 40 miles from Islamabad, without asking permission of the government, Barack Obama made a bold and courageous decision.
Its success, and the accolades he has received, have given him a credibility as commander in chief that he never had before.
The law professor, it turns out, is a gunslinger.
Should the president now decide on a major withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in July, or side with his generals and make a token pullout, either way, the country will accept his decision.
Yet, as one looks to the Maghreb and Middle East, to the Gulf and Pakistan, events of this historic year point to an inexorable retreat of American power and the American presence.
Consider Pakistan. Today, that nation is red-faced that its military and intelligence services lied or did not know Osama was living in a mansion a mile from their West Point. And Pakistan is humiliated that U.S. commandos flew in by chopper at night, killed Osama in his compound, and made off with his body, computers and cell phones.
Relations are close to the breaking point. Mobs are burning American flags. Angry congressmen are talking of cutting off aid to Pakistan for disloyalty and duplicity in hiding bin Laden. Pakistanis are enraged Americans would trample on their sovereignty like that.
Even before Sunday's killing of Osama, Pakistan's prime minister had reportedly told Hamid Karzai in Kabul to let the Americans leave on schedule in 2014, and let Pakistan and China help him cut his deal with the Taliban. In the long run, this is likely to happen.
U.S. and NATO forces leave, the Taliban returns, and Pakistan moves into the orbit of China, which has far more cash—$3 trillion in foreign currency reserves—and more of a long-term interest in South Asia than a busted United States on the far side of the world.
The "Great Game" will go on in Afghanistan, but without Western players—only Iran, Russia, China, Pakistan and India.
In the other two critical Islamic nations in the region, Turkey and Egypt, we see a similar unraveling of ties to Washington.
Turkey has been going its own way since she refused George W. Bush permission to use Turkish bases to invade Iraq.
Ankara has become less secular and more Islamic, and begun to highlight her identity as a Middle Eastern nation. She has repaired relations with neighbors America regards as rogue states: Iran and Syria. And she has become the champion of the Gaza Palestinians.
Since Hosni Mubarak's fall, Egypt has pursued a similar course. Cairo has allowed Iranian warships to transit Suez and is about to re-establish ties to Tehran. She has brokered an agreement uniting Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, and is about to reopen the border crossing between Egypt and Gaza. Israeli anger and American alarm are politely ignored.
Though their population, like Pakistan's, is anti-American, neither Turkey nor Egypt is openly hostile. Yet both pursue policies that clash with U.S. policy. And this new distance from Washington is being met with the approval of Turks and Egyptians. For the one thing all of the uprisings of the Arab Spring have had in common is a desire of these peoples to be rid of American hegemony.
Indeed, taking inventory after four months of Arab revolts, it is difficult not to declare America a net loser.
Our ally of 30 years, Mubarak, was overthrown. The new government is moving away from us. Our ally in Tunisia was ousted.
Our unpopular and ruthless ally in Yemen is still fighting for survival. The brutality shown by our friend, Bahrain's King Khalifa, against peaceful Shiite demonstrators probably means eventual loss of basing rights for the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
We are to begin pulling troops out of Afghanistan this summer and complete the withdrawal in 2014. We are down from 170,000 troops in Iraq to 50,000. All are to be gone by year's end.
Americans have had their fill of nation-building. We cannot afford any more decade-long wars where the benefits to the American people have to be endlessly explained.
Why is America's footprint shrinking in that part of the world?
First, Americans have never been less popular there, and one demand of every revolution is for a new government, independent of the United States, that will defend the national sovereignty.
Second, we are broke. We can no longer afford the bases. We can no longer afford the wars. We can no longer afford the aid.
Third, the true vital interest of the United States in this part of the world is that these Islamic countries not become base camps of terror, especially nuclear terror, targeted against the United States.
That end is surely better served by packing and departing than by staying and fighting.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
One begins to wonder why we even need a "footprint" at all.
As I study the original intent of many if not most of our founders, it is abundantly clear they meant for us to remain neutral in our dealings with other nations' and their conflicts. For some time now of course, any such assertion is met with charges of naivite isolationism, burying one's head in the sand, or - my "favorite" - an admonishment that we have a duty as the "leader of the free world", a noblesse oblige, I guess.
But is Switzerland "isolationist"? Are they naive? Rather, it looks to me like they mind their own business and are a prosperous people, abundantly willing and able to fight if invaded, but peaceful nonetheless. What's so bad about that, I wonder.
The Declaration of Independence states "government by the consent of the governed". How do bombing foreign and sovereign countries into ‘democracy’ fulfill this statement? Is there anything that has transpired in this country since WWII that is not a total and outrageous joke?
We withdrew from the world after WW I and got WW II. We withdrew from the world after WW II, lost Czechosovakia in the 1948 coup and almost lost Greece, Turkey & Berlin and got the Korean and Vietnese Wars. We withdrew from after Vietnam and 2 million Cambodians and several hundred thousand Vietnamese were murdered. We withdrew from Iran, Ethopia and Angola and had to revive our national defenses under Reagan. Wasn't Pat Buchanan you part of the Reagan administration at these times? Now we are withdrawing from the world's areas of most important oil reserves, which is our only lever left over China. Soon we will be forced out of the western Pacific. Have we learned nothing? We have the "Sola Scriptura" crowd of foreign policy advocates that say we should be neutral and isolationist because of what George Washington said in the late 1700's. The world is different than in the 1700's. Iran is talking with Venezeula about putting missiles there. The isolationists blame every catastrophe on our own leaders, such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11 in order to explain and justify their ideological position of isolationism. Pat Buchanan is evidently part of the revived America First movement. Charles Linburgh railed against Roosevelt for sending our arms to Britain to fight the Nazi's in Europe instead of arming ourselves and hunkering down on this side of the Atlantic. Well Lingburgh was colossally wrong! So are advocates today of isolationism. When Rome is strong the provinces are peaceful. We are an empire, so let's start acting like. If we aren't the top dog in the world, then someone else will be, probably China. Who would like that?
Mr. Gilmartin: You may find of interest Francis Fukiyama's latest
book on China and it's ancient history of dynasty and empire.
Yes, Rome was an empire for over 500 years but then too there was
change. Why do countries not recognize the difference between
covetousness and trade, aid and bribery?
Your comments are appreciated.
#4. Mr. Gilmartin. Exactly who is "we"?
Why would anyone pick up a book by the Wrongway Corrigan of American pontification? And once he started, why continue? And, if one made the terrible mistake of actually reading the whole thing, not burn the book to hide the evidence? There is some good in almost every bad writer and bogus thinker, but I can't think of what that good quality might be in Fukuyama. By the way, the origin of the state has been the subject of almost as many bad books as the origin of language. In general, it is a subject that attracts the same sort of people who are drawn to phrenology or Straussianism, that is, subjects in which the writer can make up reality as he goes along. There have been a few decent political anthropologists who worked in this vein, but no political theorist has made a positive contribution since Aristotle's Politics. I speak as someone who spent many a weary year ploughing through this dreadful stuff. Oh, and by the way, when FF was not proclaiming the end of history or man's transcendence through biotechnology, he was voting for Obama.
The kernel of truth in Mr. Gilmartin's words is that the Constitution is largely irrelevant to the present situation of the U.S. and that while the wisdom of the Founding Fathers may have much perennial value, they must not become sacred cows, especially since much of their particular advice regarding the U.S. was directed toward a small 18th-century farmers' confederation populated largely by resourceful Anglo-Germans, African slaves and a few mulattos.
With regards to the comparison to imperial Rome, Rome generally intervened only to annex territory or to create formal tributary states. Until 1916, this was largely the case in U.S. foreign policy: when we went to war, we came out of it physically more spacious. That was the way classic wars were fought. Sure, the U.S. could have singlehandedly pre-empted most of the rest of the 20th century by occupying and dismembering Prussia once and for all and then finishing the job in the Russian Civil War. But Wilson had gone too far without going far enough and the Anerican public had lost patience. That seems to be the pattern of U.S. foreign policy (not all) in most instances throughout the 20th century. We had some bright moments during the Cold War (West Germany, Greece and Chile, mostly) but given our halheartedness and in view of current events, it must be acknowledged that just staying home couldn't possibly have made the final results worse in Vietnam, Iran, Kuwait, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya--that is, for most of the past 51 years.
Good column by Pat. Its almost impossible to have intelligent discussion about Foreign policy in this country. Whenever anyone with some patriotism and common sense suggests maybe we should reduce our commitments, not start so many needless and endless wars, or not fret ourselves into a nervous breakdown over what Timbutoo or Nowhereastan is doing - then the Global world-savers cry "Isolationist" and "Its 1938 over again!".
Regarding Israel, I suggest we offer each Israeli $1 million dollars to move to "New Israel" which will be our 51st state and carved out of Texas. I'm sure Rev Hagee and Pat Robertson would love to help buy the land.
Why Texas? New York or better Massachusetts.
Why Texas?
IRC, Texas when it came into the Union, claimed the right to divide itself into a couple more states. Plus, its the main home of the Christian Zionists. No need for anymore expensive Jet travel, "New Israel" would be right next door. Reverend Huckabee could visit weekly - by bus.
The good news is that we won't be able to squander trillions of $imoleons invading Iran.
@ 4 Mr Gilmartin
You are engaging in a form of logic called post hockey ergo propter hockey. Bullhockey! The US involvement in WWII started when Alvin York's ex-congressman got a new job as Old Rubberlegs' Secretary of State. He embargoed Japan for annexing Manchuria. Not really our problem. He engaged in the goofy Lend-lease which picked sides against Germany in the European conflict. Korea and Vietnam were wastes of both money and lives, and ultimately jacked up our taxes for no good reason. The Cold War was only won by outspending the Russians, and their empire fell apart in Afghanistan.
US inaction in all these cases would more likely have had a better outcome. But, now we'll never know for sure. It seems that no matter who's in charge of various and sundry nations, all we really care about is the big boss man with whom Wall Street capitalists can do business with.
The problem is, our ruling class have for several generations now fancied themselves as omniscient beings charged with carekeeping the globe, according to delusionary abstract principles. The people's lives and treasure are merely the materials for their fantasies. True rulers would be safeguarding the people.
Mr. Gervaise @13 and Dr. Wilson @ 14:
In the words of Delmar O'Donnell, "I'm with you fellers!"
Why does it always feel like being taken to task as some errant teenager for not mowing the grass, taking out the trash, etc. just because we want to stop poking our noses in other country's business? Again, what's so wrong with Switzerland's paradigm?
Dr. Wilson, as ususal, hit the nail on the head. U.S. policy, both internal and domestic, is driven by leftist ideology where our rulers seek to recreate the world into what they think it should be, human nature and personal choice be damned. Eric Voegelin described how the dream-like world of the fanatic leftist replaces the real world, and the leftist’s fervent mission to shape and change the world of reality serves as a replacement for religion. The end result has been destruction, chaos, oppression, and the growth of the central state. In regards to war, Bruce Peters wrote in ‘War and the Rise of the State’:
Throughout the history of the United States, war
has been the primary impetus behind the growth and
development of the central state. It has been the lever by
which presidents and other national officials have
bolstered the power of the state in the face of tenacious
popular resistance. It has been a wellspring of American
nationalism and a spur to political and social change.
I meant internationl or foreign in the above comment, not internal. As it reads, I said the same thing twice.
Dear Professor Wilson - In answer to your question in comment #6, by "We", I mean of course the United States.
In regard to your comment #14, I agree with you. I call the problem Manhattanism. By that term I mean that a mandarintate has formed over time, starting in the North, prior to the Civil War, which put down deep roots in the Ivy League universities and given financial form by the great fortunes of the Rockefellers, Carnegie, etc. and the foundations those families formed which are mainly located in Manhattan. Their mouthpieces are the TV networks in Manhattan, who share influence with the Meta-Marxist in Hollywood, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. This movement was given great impetus from the Progressives under the McKinley and T. Roosevelt administrations, and amplified by Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc. They are currently strangling our education system with their cultural indoctrination inspired by Bismarck's Kulture Kamfph and the reforming the school systems along the lines of the Prussian state of the 1800's. This includes the corruption of the populace's sexual morals in order to break down the family.
Mr rcocean@9,
Very true indeed - but sad. Reading some remarks here about our foreign policy reminds me of Chesterton's quip, "One who says, 'my country, right or wrong' is like saying my mother, drunk or sober."
Looks like Mr. Gilmartin & Professor Wilson have some common ground. Specifically, mistrust of Bismarck & the Prussians.
Mr. Gilmartin wrote "By 'We', I mean of course the United States." He later wrote, "[A] mandarintate has formed over time, starting in the North, prior to the Civil War, which put down deep roots in the Ivy League universities and given financial form by the great fortunes of the Rockefellers, Carnegie, etc."
I see a contradiction there. The trouble is that the second part of your statement about the artificiality of the mandarin-imposed Utopian vision belies your first statement about 'We' being, of course, the United States. The all-encompassing 'We' is a sleight-of-hand of statists and it kept on surfacing in Union rhetoric during the civil war, a war greatly financed and motivated by the kind of corporatism you appear to be denouncing. So it cannot be both evil AND natural for Americans to identify closely with the activities of the central government.
Mr. Thomas Fleming @ #7 - I have to agree with your evaluation
of the writer mentioned. He belongs to that club of history
students and my realization not to put much store in what they
write. Is not this some country though whatever age or class
we find ourselves.
I appreciate your commentary.
Pat Buchanan who once was an ROTC candidate, and dropped out is now so unsettled by war that he even congratulates the Navy Seals in the Pakistan incursion while writing a book that invalidates the US involvment in WWll. He is most intelligent, and at the same time tortured by his inconsistencies on war and the defense of our nation.
I say that Pat should have become a second lieutenant, and served. Then he should have interviewed Audie Murphy.
So, if New Yorkers decided to hold a war and Southerners refused to enlist in the armed forces, and our wars were fought by homosexuals, illegal immigrants and college radicals. What would happen?
Reading Chronicles, I have gotten such a general impression of what an ideal stance towards loyalty towards countrymen and government is supposed to be.
1) You don't have to believe government war propaganda.
2) You should still be loyally committed to help out your government or not go against their mandates, when they demand it of you.
Now, how many of you, who have served as soldiers, would ever have the willpower to say, "As a part of my patriotic duty, I will fight and contribute to this war in another part of the world to serve Wall Street interests"?
Or maybe, "I do not like emptying out this Latin American/Middle Eastern region for allowing an American oil company to thrive on local resources, but I must do so anyway, with long shifts and hours of strenuous work"?
Because it must be emotionally painful if you ever did, right? And yet, that's the only decent thing one can ever believe, right?
Mr. Buchanan is a man and product of the country we both were
born and raised in but whose situations have placed us both in
different circles.
His appearances on McLaughlin Group, with
its 30 minute time span and four other participants I found
do not, nor does that setting really speak to much. But those of
us who watch will take what is presented. I have read a few
of his books, not the one on WWII. As a history writer and
a man who appears loyal to the party of independents, he faces
a path of two arts - political science strategist and writer.
His essays and work are appreciated.
We have to learn that the U.S. government is not our country.
Perhaps we would also do well to remember that the first conquest an Empire makes is the conquest of its own people.
I want my shoes out of that "footprint". I want better scools, better medical care, a tight leash on financial acrobatics, harsher sentences on white collar crime, respect for the Constitution. If we needed a footprint - it would have been found in the Constituion or the Declaration of Independence - but noooooooooooooooooah. It was Monroe who first embarked on it.
If I ever leave a footprint it will be on the side of the opposition to who-ever so is in the office (you can recognize them since they manage to talk from both sides of their mouth).