|
Iraq, Afghanistan, and America’s Rubicon
Two events that may cement America’s status as an empire
By: Matt Fay
For those that don’t know, the Rubicon is a small river (approximately 29K long) in northern Italy that, during the days of ancient Rome, served as a boundary between Italy and Gaul (modern France). The Rubicon is famous more for its symbolism than its physical location. In ancient Rome, no army was allowed in Italy for fear of military rule displacing that of the Roman Senate. When Julius Caesar brought his legions across the Rubicon and assumed dictatorial powers – he claimed were for the good of the Republic – the Rome that had been ruled by laws ceased to exist. And though Rome would not officially become an empire until years later, when Caesar’s nephew Octavian would rename himself Caesar Augustus and seize imperial power, the crossing of the Rubicon is looked at as the moment the Roman Republic died and the Roman Empire was conceived.
(If anyone wants to see an interesting take on these events I would suggest checking out the HBO series Rome. The show does take some historical license, but is reasonably accurate. If not for anything else, the show is worth watching for the characters Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus – members of Julius Caesar’s 13th Legion around which many of the events of the show revolve – who may just be two of the baddest dudes in history).
There are two events that may be coming in the near future that represent the American Republic’s crossing of the Rubicon into empire. Neither is set in stone, but both would represent a symbolic turn that no patriotic American should wish to see.
1). The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government
While the reasons for getting out of Iraq have, for the most part, remained fairly consistent; the reasons for leaving Iraq change daily. Ron Paul, writing on Antiwar.com, recently asked,
“What will it take to get our troops out of Iraq? The roughly 70 percent of Americans who are firmly against the war often ask this question. Those in power are reluctant to give conditions, but when they do and those conditions are met, the goal post is quietly moved.”
One of those conditions often cited by those who still support the war is a functioning, democratic government in Baghdad. It would seem with that a possibility for the first time since the Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled; it may be the worst thing for the Bush Administration.
Despite constant promises that it would not seek any permanent bases in Iraq (that’s why the Bush Administration constantly spoke of an “enduring” presence instead of a “permanent” one), fifty-eight permanent bases were asked for in recent negotiations over a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would legalize U.S. troop presence after a U.N. resolution governing the occupation expires at the end of this year. The fifty-eight bases is actually far less than the original number that has been reported as over two hundred bases that were desired prior to the beginning of the negotiations. Now the Iraqi government is showing it is responsive to its people, 80% of which want the U.S. out some time within in the next 12 to 18 months, by desiring something loathsome to President Bush, John McCain, and other Iraq War supporters – a timetable for withdrawal.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently said,
“The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or a memorandum of understanding to put a timetable on their withdrawal.”
Iraq’s foreign minister had an even more unequivocal statement after meeting with Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. It is Sistani’s contention that any SOFA without a requisite and firm timetable would be a virtual attack on the country’s sovereignty. Both men have also expressed their view that any SOFA should also include a provision expressly banning any attack on Iraq’s neighbors – namely Iran. While al-Maliki, being a politician, may backtrack on his statement, it is hard to believe that Sistani would see any SOFA without the timetable differently than he does currently.
If, in the remaining months of the Bush Administration, a SOFA is reached that does not include the timetables both the government and people of Iraq seek, then there will be little doubt that the occupation that has gone on now for over five years will be one of an overtly imperial nature.
2). Zalmay Khalilzad and his proposed run for president of Afghanistan
Zalmay Khalilzad is many things. Currently he is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He has served as special envoy and ambassador to both Iraq and Afghanistan. He is a native of Afghanistan – though he was educated, and has lived his entire adult life, in the United States. He is a, seemingly, bright and capable man. And, despite the fact that he is a neoconservative, has never shown himself to be either crazy or stupid. But despite no overt signs of mental illness, it is being reported that Khalilzad is considering challenging Afghan President Hamid Karzai in that country’s next election.
This idea is not smart on too many levels to list, but an attempt is at least worthwhile. Afghanistan is, according to Dr. Michael Scheuer – the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit and a man who helped facilitate the operations to arm the Afghan mujahideen in their Jihad against the Soviets during the 1980s, one of the most xenophobic societies on the planet. Though Khalilzad, like Karzai, is of Pahstun ethnicity – the largest of the ethnic tribal groups in Afghanistan – he, also like Karzai, has been outside of that country for far too long for it to be plausible that he would be accepted by anyone other than the political elite. Karzai, having lived in exile for many years, is also smart and capable, but is viewed as an outsider even by his fellow Pashtuns, as well as being viewed as an American puppet; there is little reason to think a member of the U.S. government would be held in greater esteem.
Back in the waning days of the Cold War, then Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney asked his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, to come up with a new strategy for the United States that no longer included the Soviet Union as an enemy. Khalilzad was, along with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, one of the main contributors to the controversial “Grand Strategy” that called for nothing less than American global domination and was seen as a blueprint for an American Empire. Though the document was denounced by President George H.W. Bush’s administration after it was leaked to the press, much of what Wolfowitz, Libby, and Khalilzad suggested has now become enshrined in the National Security Strategy of the current Bush Administration.
After leaving government work behind during the two terms of President Bill Clinton, Khalilzad obtained a lucrative job working for American oil company Unocal. Most people assume that Afghanistan was largely ignored during the 1990s while the Taliban came into power. In fact, Unocal was working with the Taliban on a pipeline that would travel through Afghanistan. Unocal’s chief representative on that project – Zalmay Khalilzad.
It is quite possible that Khalilzad’s intentions are entirely pure. He may see his country of birth in dire condition and feel that the best thing to do is become directly involved in its government. Of course, no matter his intentions, there is no doubt that he would be perceived as nothing more than an American Imperial Governor or Viceroy. In politics – and more so in international politics – perception is often reality.
Trackback(0)
 |
American Democracy
Freedom
Globalization
Defense
Competition
Education
Environment
Taxes and Spending
Health Care
Social Security
Random 
Most Recent 
Most Popular
The Prometheus Institute. The Prometheus Institute is a libertarian think tank based in California and a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit.
Tags
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
