Fallujah: High Tide of Empire?

http://www.amconmag.com ^

[fourfivesix]

Fallujah: High Tide of Empire?

by Pat Buchanan

At Versailles, 1919, Lloyd George, having seized oil-rich Iraq for the empire, offered Woodrow Wilson mandates over Armenia and Constantinople. “When you cease to be President we will make you Grand Turk,” laughed Clemenceau.

As there were “no oil fields there,” writes historian Thomas Bailey, “it was assumed that rich Uncle Sam would play the role of Good Samaritan.” Though unamused, Wilson accepted the mandates.

Fortunately, Harding won in 1920 and reneged on the deal. Lloyd George and Churchill were left to face the Turks all by their imperial selves. Had we accepted Constantinople, Americans would have ended up fighting Ataturk’s armies to hold today’s Istanbul.

After 9/11, however, our neoconservatives, who had been prattling on about “global hegemony” and a “crusade for democracy” since the end of the Cold War, sold President Bush on their imperial scheme: a MacArthur Regency in Baghdad.

And so it is that we have arrived at this crossroads.

What Fallujah and the Shi’ite uprisings are telling us is this: if we mean to make Iraq a pro-Western democracy, the price in blood and treasure has gone up. Shall we pay it is the question of the hour. For there are signs Americans today are no more willing to sacrifice for empire than was Harding to send his nation’s sons off to police and run provinces carved out of the Ottoman Empire.

In bringing Bush’s “world democratic revolution” to Iraq, we suffer today from four deficiencies: men, money, will, and stamina.

First, we do not have the troops in country to pacify Iraq. Some 70 percent of our combat units are committed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and South Korea already. If we are going to put more men into Iraq, U.S. military forces must expand.

Those who speak of democratizing Iraq as we did Germany tend to forget: in 1945, we had 12 million men under arms and four million soldiers in Europe. German resistance disappeared in 1945 with the death of Hitler. There was no guerrilla war against us. Today, our army is only 480,000 strong and scattered across 100 countries. And we have 129,000 troops in an Iraq that is as large as California and an escalating war against urban guerrillas.

Second, we are running out of money. The U.S. deficit is $500 billion and rising. The merchandise trade deficit is headed toward $600 billion, putting downward pressure on a dollar that has been falling for three years. Nations with declining currencies do not create empires, they give them up.

Then there is the deficit in imperial will. President Bush sold the war on Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was a man of unique evil who could not be trusted with a weapon of mass destruction. Today, whatever threat Saddam posed is gone.

While America supported the president in going to war, we have not bought into the idea that we must democratize the Islamic world or we are unsafe in our own country. Polls show that nearly half the nation believes we should start coming home.

Which brings us to our fourth deficiency, stamina. Empire requires an unshakeable belief in the superiority of one’s own race, religion, and civilization and an iron resolve to fight to impose that faith and civilization upon other peoples.

We are not that kind of people. Never have been. Americans, who preach the equality of all races, creeds, and cultures, are, de facto, poor imperialists. When we attempt an imperial role as in the Philippines or Iraq, we invariably fall into squabbling over whether a republic should be imposing its ideology on another nation. A crusade for democracy is a contradiction in terms.

While it would be nice if Brazil, Bangladesh, and Burundi all embraced democracy, why should we fight them if they don’t, and why should our soldiers die to restore democracy should they lose it? Why is that our problem, if they are not threatening us?

What Iraq demonstrates is that once the cost in blood starts to rise, Americans tend to tell their government that enough is enough, put the Wilsonian idealism back on the shelf, and let’s get out.

If attacked, Americans fight ferociously. Unwise nations discover that. Threatened, as in the Cold War, we will persevere. But if our vital interests are not threatened, or our honor is not impugned, most of us are for staying out of wars.

That is our history and oldest tradition. It may be ridiculed as selfish old American isolationism, but that is who we are and that is how we came to be the last world power left standing on the bloodstained world stage after the horrific 20th century.

Americans will cheer globaloney. They just won’t fight and die for it. Nor should they.

May 10, 2004 issue Copyright © 2004 The American Conservative

[iconoclast]

We cant take any city we want to in Iraq.

Freudian slip? ;o)

[fourfivesix]

"They call Pat fascist as our nation creeps in that direction with every passing day."

True, one might as soon call the founding fathers fascists as Buchanan.

[moehoward]

"Fortress America looking better and better every day."

Don't know about looking better but it's certainly looking to be inevitable.

[ex-snook]

"True, one might as soon call the founding fathers fascists as Buchanan. "

Pat's critics keep looking for some lie that sticks - some call him rightwing others call him leftwing. Their problem is that can't refute his truth.

Pat is right about this as he was about illegal immigration, abortion, homosexual practices, NAFTA jobs losses and foreign entanglements will bring war to our shores.

[moehoward]

Agreed

[WOSG]

Ah, but this whole "empire building adventures" story line is a strawman argument. We are fighting the War on Terror. That's not the same as "empire-building".

And his does insinuate that war costs are the margin of difference, by saying we cant "afford" the war. So his misleads on the cause and effect at both ends.

This War on Terror aint cheap, but we can certainly afford it in our $10 trillion economy; indeed we *must* afford it, or all our other trinkets arent worth having.

[Amelia]

Our occupation/stabilization of Germany appears to have taken the better part of 7 years. I'm not sure we can conquer and stabilize Iraq as quickly as we say we can.

[WOSG]

"SoD Rumsfield purged the penegon of top commenders that disagreed with his troops require accessment, and as you have noted, recent events are proving the accessment incorrect. "

AHem, strawman argument alert.
Rumsefeld didnt "purge" anyone for that reason; the assessment was never a fixed number, but based on events on the ground. As events change, assessments change. Rumsfeld himself has repeatedly cautioned against making predictions since events in the future that once must account for are unknowable. I recall him saying this in April 2003 when press badgered him for predictions on when this, that or the other happened.

So IMHO this mischaracterizes the situation. The reality is that there is ongoing assessment by CENTCOM commanders of what they need and DoD has accomodated those needs throughout. The current assessment of Abizaid is that they DO NOT NEED more troops than what they have, currently around 135,000 and if they did, they would ask for them. He has further stated that he cannot imagine at all any need for very large increment in troop strength. What CENTCOM wants are more Iraqis, so security has an "iraqi" face and doesnt look like a foreign occupation.

See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1127579/posts

GEN. ABIZAID: Do I have enough troops in Iraq for the current circumstances? Clearly, I asked for more troops. The 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment were on their way home, and I asked that we up the number of forces in the country so that we could have a mobile reserve to deal with the conditions that were developing in the Fallujah area and down in the Najaf-Karbala area.

So asking the question about do we need more capacity in Iraq, we need more Iraqi security capacity and we need more international security capacity. I think many of you have heard me say on a number of occasions that I do not favor large increased numbers of American troops unless they have to deal with an immediate security problem, which is what we currently have.

I do favor the inclusion of more international troops, especially more Muslim troops. For example, Morocco, Pakistan, Tunisia, they all have very capable and very professional forces that could be added to the stability equation once we move into this new level of political future that develops after negotiations in the U.N., or wherever they may take place.

I would also favor the inclusion of other international forces to fill in where we've had the Spanish withdrawal. I believe, and I think Iraqis will second me on this, this needs to be less of an American occupation and more of an international military activity that includes Iraqis, international forces and Americans. So, to the extent that more international forces are able to join the team after a U.N. resolution, we would very much welcome them.

Am I comfortable with where we are now? Militarily, yes. If the situation were to move into less secure circumstances than are currently visible in the country, I would go to the secretary and ask for more forces, and General Sanchez agrees with me on that. But I don't see a need to do that now.

[WOSG]

"Perhaps I'm just a little ole ignorant feller from flyover country,"

arent we all here? :-)

"... but isn't turning control over to a Republican Guard general just a little like as if we had turned over security in Germany to the Waffen SS in 1946?"

This has been hashed on many threads. Plenty of ex-WWII German military ended up in post WWII German military. Also, USA did find many Nazi spies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere useful when the cold war heated up. We forbade the Nazi party, but we didnt prevent former nazi party members from being in Government at all.

This is an act of co-option. It seems the policy of extreme debaathification that we followed simply made half a million of the countries governing and military elite unemployed, bitter and hostile to us. ... Was that smart? IN retrospect, it has been a big source of our trouble in Iraq.

We have to bring some of the ones on board that *dont* want to bring back baathist policies but *do* have the skills to build Iraqi institutions in the new Iraq. The real question is whether this mans loyalties are to a democratic and stable Iraq. That is our goal, and Iraqis who were not criminals or torturers in their past and are willing to help that should be welcomed.

I'd refer you to Bremer's speech a few weeks back on the matter.

[WOSG]

"Pat's critics keep looking for some lie that sticks - some call him rightwing others call him leftwing. Their problem is that can't refute his truth."

oh please, Pat himself keeps looking for 'lies that stick'... his whole "empire-building" line is a massive strawman argument. The US is not doing anything of the kind.

Whether he is right on other issues, Pat has been consistently *WRONG* on middle east foreign policy. He was wrong about Gulf War I which he opposed (if Pat had his way, Saddam would be in Mecca by now), WRONG about Israel / Palestine (if Pat had his way, Arafat would be ruling Jerusalem by now) ... Due mainly to his irrational fear of Jewish Power.

[Beenliedto]

We are fighting the War on Terror.

If we are fighting a "War on Terror," we are fighting it in the wrong place.

No WMDs, no links between Osama and Saddam, which many of us have recognized from the very beginning. It's all been a fabrication.

Actually, what we're doing is creating a recruiting windfall for those who would strike us, and tying down our military forces in what is probably an unwinnable situation.

So where's the "strawman argument?" Pat's more right than wrong in this case.

[WOSG]

Western ideals do have a toehold in Iraq and there are certainly many Iraqis who dont want Saddam's regime or anything like it back, and want not just democracy but close relations with USA.

Here is a blog from one of the pro-democracy Iraqis in Baghdad:

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

Interesting. This guy is flying the 'new flag' of Iraq now.

[ex-snook]

"Whether he is right on other issues, Pat has been consistently *WRONG* on middle east foreign policy. He was wrong about Gulf War I which he opposed (if Pat had his way, Saddam would be in Mecca by now), WRONG about Israel / Palestine (if Pat had his way, Arafat would be ruling Jerusalem by now) ... Due mainly to his irrational fear of Jewish Power. "

Like I said, people are looking for lies about Pat that they want to stick.

Pat is for American interests like getting bin Laden. He is not for spending lives or money on the problems of Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo, Korea, Israel, Formosa, the UN, or anywhere else. Nor does he object to Arabs killing each other in Kuwait, Iran or Iraq.

[hinckley buzzard]

PJB's theory falls apart when confronted with the fact that the Islamists will attack us at home without provocation.


Why would they?


Uh, I think they already did...

[Age of Reason]

Do you know what their reason for attacking us was?

[section9]

Without provocation? What do you call the aspirin factories that the Klinton bombed to take his lewinsky affair off the frontpage news? I call it provocation.

I don't.

Remember, the Islamists had been warring on us for years prior to Clinton's little Sudanese adventure. When they're not Jew-baiting, PJB and the Paleocons usually (and conveniently) forget that the very existence of Western Civilization is a constant source of shame to the Muslim. They really have a jacked-up excuse for a civilization, the veneer of which is a massive excuse for failure, obsequiousness, and the rule of the latest fascist strongman. Too many Arabs can't look at themselves in the mirror and engage in healthy self-criticism. Even their press reads like the German broadsheets of the 1930's in their contempt for the Jew and the American. And don't get me started on their bought and paid for hothouse intellectual class.

They have been attacking us since the Seventies. We just never responded. The 1972 Munich Massacre was only the beginning; as long as the Jew and the Christian exist outside of Islamic rule, they will wish us ill and attempt to kill us. Buchanan is merely an errant fool whose Jew-baiting has gotten the better of his good sense.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[deport]

[Joe Hadenuf]

Interesting read, and pretty much correct.

I concur.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Pat B. is wrong this point: "First, we do not have the troops in country to pacify Iraq. "

You suggest you can control a country the size of California, full of armed religious freaks with a mear 100,000 or so troops? Wont happen.

What we NEED are Iraqi security forces that can help patrol the streets that are reliable.

LOL, good luck.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Good photo of Pat. I love it.