Drums of War
Published in La Jornada
(Mexico) on 08 Sept 2014
by Arturo Balderas Rodríguez (link to original)
(Mexico) on 08 Sept 2014
by Arturo Balderas Rodríguez (link to original)
Translated from
by Patricia OConnor.
Edited by Emily France.
It is not easy to explain America’s vicissitudes in the international sphere. A quick review of them exposes the increasingly complicated situation that President Obama will face during the remaining months of his administration.
The Middle East, Europe and Africa are a puzzle whose solution is becoming increasingly out of reach for the U.S., which, like it or not, is the military and economic leader of the world. Obama has said it again and again: the U.S. cannot act as the global police, responsible for solving all the world’s problems. The issue for Obama is that history and circumstance contradict his words and wishes. Over the course of its history, due to specific government initiatives, the U.S. has achieved a dominant role and has become the example of how to solve the world’s problems. That is what makes it nearly impossible for the current U.S. administration (as well as upcoming administrations in the near future) to backtrack on a course that was initiated more than two centuries ago.
What happened in Iraq serves as a recent example of this course of history. The consequences of the U.S. invasion of that country and the dismantling of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein – under the pretext that there were weapons of mass destruction there – created the conditions for the balkanization of the country. And the U.S. is directly responsible. Although those who most diligently support the use of arms to achieve U.S. dominance assert that the fratricidal conflict in Iraq is the result of removing the troops, they are wrong. The day after President Bush made his “mission accomplished” announcement, the breakup of Iraq was already underway, due to the longstanding power struggles between Shiites and Sunnis. The Bush-imposed government soon became a new ruling class – no less inept or authoritarian. To top it all off, the situation has further degenerated with the birth of the Islamic State, an ultra-radical faction that has assassinated thousands of its own citizens and is now making a public display of violence with the beheading of two foreign journalists. The drums of war are beating and there is growing pressure on Obama to intervene directly in Iraq by sending troops.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has stirred the same interventionist temptation. There are those who would like to see U.S. soldiers on the ground to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty against Russia – and also in Syria and the dozens of other countries with armed internal conflicts.
In summary, though it represents a goldmine for the U.S. military-industrial complex, interventionism would also be the downfall of millions of peace-loving Americans, including the current president. In this age of nationalism, excessive ethnic identification and ultra-religious dogma, it is fairly easy to identify those who would benefit first when the drums of war start beating.
The Middle East, Europe and Africa are a puzzle whose solution is becoming increasingly out of reach for the U.S., which, like it or not, is the military and economic leader of the world. Obama has said it again and again: the U.S. cannot act as the global police, responsible for solving all the world’s problems. The issue for Obama is that history and circumstance contradict his words and wishes. Over the course of its history, due to specific government initiatives, the U.S. has achieved a dominant role and has become the example of how to solve the world’s problems. That is what makes it nearly impossible for the current U.S. administration (as well as upcoming administrations in the near future) to backtrack on a course that was initiated more than two centuries ago.
What happened in Iraq serves as a recent example of this course of history. The consequences of the U.S. invasion of that country and the dismantling of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein – under the pretext that there were weapons of mass destruction there – created the conditions for the balkanization of the country. And the U.S. is directly responsible. Although those who most diligently support the use of arms to achieve U.S. dominance assert that the fratricidal conflict in Iraq is the result of removing the troops, they are wrong. The day after President Bush made his “mission accomplished” announcement, the breakup of Iraq was already underway, due to the longstanding power struggles between Shiites and Sunnis. The Bush-imposed government soon became a new ruling class – no less inept or authoritarian. To top it all off, the situation has further degenerated with the birth of the Islamic State, an ultra-radical faction that has assassinated thousands of its own citizens and is now making a public display of violence with the beheading of two foreign journalists. The drums of war are beating and there is growing pressure on Obama to intervene directly in Iraq by sending troops.
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has stirred the same interventionist temptation. There are those who would like to see U.S. soldiers on the ground to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty against Russia – and also in Syria and the dozens of other countries with armed internal conflicts.
In summary, though it represents a goldmine for the U.S. military-industrial complex, interventionism would also be the downfall of millions of peace-loving Americans, including the current president. In this age of nationalism, excessive ethnic identification and ultra-religious dogma, it is fairly easy to identify those who would benefit first when the drums of war start beating.