The US mid-term elections of 2006 were a classic example of political
"blowback", a term the Central Intelligence Agency invented for internal
analysis. It refers to the unintended consequences of covert operations. The
public is generally unaware that the headlines of violence by terrorist groups
or drug lords or rogue states are blowbacks from previous US policies.
"Blowback" first appeared in a March 1954 report, since declassified, relating
to the 1953 covert operation to subject the
nationalist government of democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran to
regime change. By installing Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as shah to replace
Mossadegh, the US condemned the Iranian people to a quarter-century of tyranny
and repression that eventually strengthened extremist Islamic fundamentalism
and gave birth to theocratic revolution led by ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in
1979.
The misguided US policy elicited a tidal wave of anti-US sentiments across the
Islamic world that set the stage for the Iranian student occupation of the US
Embassy. The crisis destroyed president Jimmy Carter's chance for a second term
and turned US domestic politics sharply to the extreme right, along a
belligerent path that eventually led to a blowback in the form of the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. In reaction, the US adopted a foreign policy of
"regime change", with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as opening salvos in
President George W Bush's "war on terrorism".
The disastrous war to force a regime change in Iraq in turn produced a regime
change in Washington on the second Tuesday of November in 2006.
This
war highlights once again that military power is but a tool for achieving
political objectives. The pretense of this war was to disarm Iraq of weapons of
massive destruction (WMD), although recent emphasis has shifted to "liberating"
the Iraqi people from an alleged oppressive regime. At the end of the war, the
US still needs to produce indisputable evidence of Iraqi WMD to justify a war
that was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. Overwhelming
force is counterproductive when applied against popular resistance because it
inevitably increases the very resolve of popular resistance it aims to awe into
submission.
Only when a nation is already occupied by a foreign power can the theme of
liberation by another foreign power be regarded with credibility. A foreign
power liberating a nation from its nationalist government is a very hard sell.
The US manipulates its reason for invading Iraq like a magician pulling colored
scarves out of a breast pocket. First it was self-defense against terrorism,
then it was to disarm Iraq of WMD, now it invades to liberate the Iraqi people
form their demonic leader. Soon it will be to bring prosperity to the Iraqi
people by taking control of their oil, or to save them from their tragic fate
of belonging to a malignant civilization.
There is no point in winning the war to lose the peace. Military power cannot
be used without political constraint, which limits its indiscriminate
application. The objective of war is not merely to kill, but to impose
political control by force. Therein lies the weakest part of the US war plan to
date. The plan lacks a focus of what political control it aims to establish.
The US has not informed the world of its end game regarding Iraq, beyond the
removal of Saddam Hussein. The idea of a US occupational governor was and is a
laughable non-starter.
Guerrilla resistance will not end even after the Iraqi government is toppled
and its army destroyed. Drawing upon British experiences in Malaysia and
Rhodesia, the force ratio of army forces to guerrilla forces needed for merely
containing guerrilla resistance, let alone defeating a guerrilla force, is
about 20:1. US estimates of the size of Iraq's guerrilla force stand at 100,000
for the time being. This means the US would need a force of 2 million to
contain the situation even if it already controls the country.
A reader wrote
on April 7: "If you want Asia Times Online to be taken seriously, you might
want to consider not using any more items from Henry C K Liu ... Suggestion:
Reread his article six months from now as a test of his ability to
prognosticate."
Six months have passed and I repeat: This war may end the age of superpower.
With the fall of
Saddam and the marginalization of the Ba'ath Party in Iraqi politics, the
balance of power in the Persian Gulf region and indeed the whole Middle East is
fundamentally altered. A rise of Iraq's Shi'ites will be felt by the entire
Middle East - particularly states with their own sizable Shi'ite populations -
and Iraq's immediate neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey. Iranian theocratic influence is now dominant in the
Iraqi political milieu through the venue of democracy.
In the long perspective that governs national diplomatic priorities, the role
of the US in the region remains transient, while the rise of Iranian
theo-politics is a very serious long-term development for many countries in the
region and the world, particularly the Sunni countries.
Iran's 1979 theocratic revolution was not only a shock to the West, but to the
entire Middle East and the Islamic nations of Asia. The US will go to any
lengths to prevent the Iranian theocratic model from sweeping the region. The
Ba'ath Party of Iraq, the history of which predates Saddam's rise to power,
until its ill-advised marginalization by the US invasion authorities, had been
the main bulwark against the Iranian model of Shi'ism in Iraq.
By the regime change carried out with the invasion of Iraq, the US has
demolished that bulwark for no discernible geopolitical purpose. Sunnis in the
region are now torn between their fear of a rise of the Shi'ites in Iraq and
their commitment to Arab nationalism stimulated by foreign occupation. Neither
option has any room for US superpower dominance. The abuse of superpower, and
indeed the foolish squandering of superpower resources, appears to have
rendered the world's sole superpower powerless to shape a new world order of
peace, harmony and justice, diluting the sole justification for superpower
existence.
This is a strategic problem that cannot be corrected
by the mere change of one cabinet member, or even the change of partisan
control of one branch of government. There is a moral crisis in the US polity.
What is needed is a complete re-examination of US foreign policy to revive a
bipartisanship that recognizes the simple truth that terrorism cannot be fought
with state terror.
The US has the capacity to be a world leader of peace, but to fulfill that
noble mission it must adopt a foreign policy of tolerance, respect and fairness
toward other nations. Win the love of the world with justice and the inferno of
terrorism will be extinguished.
Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group.
His website is at www.henryckliu.com.
