Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
U.S.
Military Should Get out of the Middle East
By Jeffrey Sachs [1] / Boston Globe [2]
April 4, 2017
It’s
time to end US military engagements in the Middle East. Drones, special
operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings — the whole
nine yards. Over and done with. That might seem impossible in the face of ISIS,
terrorism, Iranian ballistic missiles, and other US security interests, but a
military withdrawal from the Middle East is by far the safest path for the
United States and the region. That approach has instructive historical
precedents.
America
has been no different from other imperial powers in finding itself ensnared
repeatedly in costly, bloody, and eventually futile overseas wars. From the
Roman empire till today, the issue is not whether an imperial army can defeat a
local one. It usually can, just as the United States did quickly in Afghanistan
in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The issue is whether it gains anything by doing so.
Following such a “victory,” the imperial power faces unending heavy costs in
terms of policing, political instability, guerilla war, and terrorist blowback.
This
is of course not to condone terrorism. Indeed, my point is to condemn imperial
rule, and to argue for political solutions rather than imperial oppression,
war, and the terror that comes in its wake. Imperial rulers, whether the
British in pre-independence America; the Americans in Cuba and the Philippines
after 1898; the French and Americans in Vietnam; and the United States in the
Middle East in recent decades, foment violent reactions that destroy peace,
prosperity, good governance, and hope. The real solutions to these conflicts
lie in diplomacy and political justice, not in imperial rule, repression, and
terror.Terrorism is a frequent consequence of imperial wars and imperial rule.
Local populations are unable to defeat the imperial powers, so they impose high
costs through terror instead. Consider the terrorism used by Jewish settlers
against the British Empire and local Palestinians in their fight for Israel’s
independence and territory; or Serbian terrorism deployed against the Hapsburg
Empire; or Vietnamese terrorism used against the French and United States in
Vietnam’s long war for independence; or American terrorism, for that matter,
that independence fighters used against the British in America’s war of
independence.
Let me
get some verbiage out of the way. By “empire” I mean a state that uses force to
impose the rulers of another country. Empires are most visible when they rule
directly through conquest and annexation, such as in the US conquests of
Hawaii, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico at the end of the 19th century. Yet
empires also rule indirectly, when they use force, covert or overt, to depose a
government they deem hostile and replace it with a government of their design
and that they intend to be under their control.
Indirect
rule has been the more typical US approach, for example when America overthrew
the elected government of Iran in 1953 in order to impose the autocratic Shah
of Iran. Similarly, America toppled the Taliban-led government of Afghanistan
in 2001, and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in 2003, in order to install regimes
friendly to the United States Easier said than done. In all of these cases, the
American imperial vision proved to be a fantasy, and the US-led violence came
to naught in terms of US interests.
In
fact, there are dozens of cases in which the CIA or American military has
overthrown governments in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East,
with the aim of indirect rule. And there are also countless bloody cases, such
as Syria and Yemen today, where the United States and local allies tried and
failed to overthrow a government and instead fomented a prolonged war. Whether
the overthrows have succeeded or failed, the long-term consequences have almost
always been violence and instability.
Perhaps
the most distinctive characteristic of the American empire is that it was a
latecomer to imperial rule. While the European powers, especially Britain and
France, were building their far-flung overseas empires in the 19th century, the
United States was still engaged in its genocidal wars against Native Americans
and its Civil War. America’s overseas empire building began almost like
clockwork in the 1890s, once the United States finally stretched from coast to
coast, thereby “closing the frontier” in North America. The next step for
America was overseas empire.
As a
latecomer empire, the United States repeatedly found itself taking up the
imperial cloak from a former European imperial power. Thus, the United States
grabbed Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the Philippines from Spain in 1898. It did so in
the name of supporting local freedom fighters against the Spanish Empire, only
to betray those freedom fighters immediately by installing US-backed regimes
(in Cuba) or direct rule (in Puerto Rico and the Philippines).
From
1898 until the end of World War II, America had few prospects for expanding its
imperial reach, since the British and French empires were still expanding.
Their biggest expansion occurred after World War I, when Britain and France
carved up the Arab lands of the defeated Ottoman Empire. Today’s Middle Eastern
war zones, including Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, are the
post-World War I creations of the British and French empires, designed
originally not for local rule but for rule by the outside empires.
World
War II bled Europe dry. Though Britain was a victor of the war, and France was
liberated, neither country had the economic, financial, military, or political
wherewithal to hold on to their overseas empires, especially since freedom
movements in their colonies were engaged in terrorism and guerilla warfare to
gain their independence. Britain and France peacefully granted independence to
some of their colonies but in other cases fought bloody wars against the
independence movements (as the French did in Algeria and Vietnam), almost
always losing in the end.
After
World War II, the United States asserted global leadership, including through
indirect rule. The United States had lent, rather than given, Britain the
armaments to fight Hitler. As a result, Britain was in debt to the United
States and the United States was well positioned to replace Britain as the
dominant world power.
America’s
postwar empire building coincided with the Cold War. More often than not,
America justified its overseas wars and CIA-led coups as necessary to defend
itself and its allies against the Soviet Union. American leaders shunned the
language of empire and direct rule. Yet the simple fact is that the United
States very often had its own narrow interests at heart: oil wealth in the
Middle East; valuable farmlands and industry in Latin America; and US military
bases across the world.
The
United States often found itself fighting a continuation of earlier imperial
wars. Vietnam is a clear case in point. Following World War II, Vietnamese
freedom fighters under Ho Chi Minh battled French imperial rule to establish an
independent Vietnam. When the Vietnamese defeated the French in a key battle in
1954, and France decided to withdraw, the United States stepped in the fight
against the Vietnamese independence fighters, a costly and bloody war that
lasted until the US withdrawal in 1975. By that point, more than one million
Vietnamese had died at US hands and more than 50,000 American soldiers had lost
their lives for no reason. The US war-making also spread disastrously to
neighboring Laos and Cambodia.
In the
Middle East, the United States also took up the preceding wars of imperial
Britain and France. America’s motives were essentially the same: to secure
Mideast oil and to project military power in Western Asia, Eastern
Mediterranean, and Indian Ocean. In 1953, the CIA teamed up with Britain’s MI6
to overthrow the elected government of Iran in order to secure Iran’s oil for
the UK and United States. Yet this was Britain’s last imperial hurrah in the
region, since the United States took the lead from that point onward.
To
examine the political histories of Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria,
Libya, Yemen, and Israel-Palestine after 1950, is to observe the United States
engaged in the intrigues, wars, CIA-led coups, and military overthrows that had
been the handiwork of Britain and France during earlier decades. The CIA
toppled governments in the Middle East on countless occasions. Media pundits
tended to overlook the US role in this instability.
The
United States is now ensnared in a perpetual, indeed expanding Middle East war,
with drones and air strikes increasingly replacing ground troops. In the past,
US ground troops committed atrocities, such as My Lai in Vietnam, that were
seared into the national conscience. Now we have drone strikes, killing
hundreds of civilians, that barely register in the news. The atrocities
continue, but the reaction to them has been automated with the efficiency of
the information age.
The
United States is trapped in the Middle East by its own pseudo-intellectual
constructions. During the Vietnam War, the “domino theory” claimed that if America
withdrew from Vietnam, communism would sweep Asia. The new domino theory is
that if the United States stops were to stop fighting ISIS, Islamic terrorists
would soon be at our doorstep.
The
truth is almost the opposite. ISIS is a ragtag army of perhaps 30,000 troops in
a region in which the large nations — including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and
Turkey — have standing armies that are vastly larger and better equipped. These
regional powers could easily drive ISIS out of existence if they chose to do so.
The US military presence is actually ISIS’s main recruiting tool. Young people
stream into Syria and Iraq to fight the imperial enemy.
Empires
trapped in regional wars can choose to fight on or more wisely to acknowledge
that the imperial adventure is both futile and self-destructive. King George
III was wise to give up in 1781; fighting the Americans wasn’t worth the
effort, even if it was possible militarily. The United States was wise to give
up the war in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam in 1975. America’s decision to cut
its losses saved not only Southeast Asia but the United States, as well. The
United States was similarly wise to curtail its CIA-led coups throughout Latin
America, as a prelude to peace in the region.
The
United States should immediately end its fighting in the Middle East and turn
to UN-based diplomacy for real solutions and security. The Turks, Arabs, and
Persians have lived together as organized states for around 2,500 years. The
United States has meddled unsuccessfully in the region for 65 years. It’s time
to let the locals sort out their problems, supported by the good offices of the
United Nations, including peacekeeping and peace-building efforts. Just
recently, the Arabs once again wisely and rightly reiterated their support for
a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians if Israel withdraws from
the conquered territories. This gives added reason to back diplomacy, not war.
We are
at the 100th anniversary of British and French imperial rule in the Mideast.
The United States has unwisely prolonged the misery and blunders. One hundred
years is enough.
Jeffrey
D. Sachs is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable
development, senior U.N. advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist
whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries. He has twice
been named among Time Magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders. Professor
Sachs serves as the Director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet Professor of
Sustainable Development, and Professor of Health Policy and Management at
Columbia University. Sachs has authored three New York Times bestsellers in the
past seven years, including "The End of Poverty." A native of
Detroit, Michigan, Sachs received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard.
[4]
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/jeffrey-sachs
[2] http://www.boston.com/
[3] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on U.S. Military Should Get out of the Middle East
[4] http://www.alternet.org/
[5] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
[2] http://www.boston.com/
[3] mailto:corrections@alternet.org?Subject=Typo on U.S. Military Should Get out of the Middle East
[4] http://www.alternet.org/
[5] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives."
Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment