A VAST
WASTELAND OF EFFORT SPENT: AMERICA’S RAMPAGE THROUGH THE MIDDLE EAST
John
Chuckman
I read that
six thousand people have been killed by sectarian violence so far this year in
Iraq, surely a good rough measure of what America’s invasion achieved there. In
Afghanistan, America’s chosen man publically disagrees with America’s ideas of
what withdrawal means, how many occupying American forces should remain, and the
role the Taleban should play. Killing remains a daily occurrence, including
regular instances of American special forces murdering civilians, drugs flow freely
through the country and out to the world, and most women still wear the burka. Libya
is reduced to rag tag bands engaged in fighting like rival gangs of bandits. Syria
writhes in agony as the victim of an artificially-induced civil war with even
the use of nerve gas on civilians by America’s proxy fighters winked at and
lied about.
Such are
just the continuing aftershocks of America’s violent, senseless campaign on the
Middle East and the Muslim world.
The screams
of the hundreds of thousands of initial victims of cluster bombs, Hellfire
rockets, depleted uranium explosions, and white phosphorus were what Condi Rice
once described as “the birth cries of a new Middle East,” likely just before
she set off on another shopping spree to New York for more cute new shoes. You
might say Condi and her psychopathic associates assumed the God-like
perspective in their work, as the people being devastated were regarded with the
importance of ants being squashed by gleeful children in a playground.
Ideas of
“nation building” around all the slaughter and destruction are now almost
forgotten in the press where they were once earnestly discussed like big government
social programs of the 1960s. It is hard to know whether those ideas were ever
taken seriously in Washington by the platoons of Pentagon consultants over expense
account lunches or whether they were never intended as more than glib slogans
and talking points for politicians’ convenience, banners with nice words to
cover piles of bleeding bodies. No clear-thinking person ever took the idea
seriously, but as we know there is not a great deal of clear thinking in times
of war, nor is there much of it at any time among American politicians.
The notion
that you can change the basic culture and social structure of a nation of tens
of millions over a foreseeable time span is laughable. Culture, including the unpleasant
parts contained by any of them, is a complex of habits, beliefs, relationships,
and prejudices formed over an immensely long period in the workings of a
people’s economy. Just as language and religious traditions cannot be greatly altered
or undone quickly, so too all the other aspects of a culture. It is simply
nonsense to believe otherwise. The efforts, over much of a century, by Russia’s
Communists to change an ancient culture, including its church and national
customs, should serve to intimidate glib references to nation-building.
The single
most important part of any serious effort to change a place and its ways of
doing things is the steady advance of its economy. It is the fluidity of a
nation undergoing long-term economic growth that gradually washes away old and
inefficient and fearful customs, changing everything from the nature of
marriage and the way families work to the kind of clothes people wear and food
they eat. After all, America’s backwaters still enjoyed family picnics at
public lynchings as late as Franklin Roosevelt’s day, and it was largely the
cumulative effects of economies restructured over decades with increasing opportunities
and movement of people and ideas that brought those ghastly practices to a
close.
Even
changing minor aspects of an entire society, as we’ve seen many times in our
own, is a long effort. Smoking is the clearest example of this, it having taken
over half a century, despite medical understanding of its hazards, to move us from
smoking being a stylish part of every Hollywood film to cigarettes being hidden
behind the counters at corner stores.
And this is
all the more true when you employ force, as the United States does habitually. People
do not react well to aggression, and it is not the way to change anything which
it may be desirable to change. On even so basic a level as raising children,
our laws and courts and schools have evolved to rule out physical force. And despite
decades of the war on drugs with its seemingly endless march of folly - armed raids,
mass arrests, seizures, and imprisonment plus tens of billions spent - we have
made no perceptible progress on what all of us recognize as a gigantic medical
and social problem.
But when the
force you employ includes B-52s, F-16s, and private armies of hired cutthroats,
it is a certainty you will change little beyond the death rate.
The United
States government now has been swept by a new enthusiasm in the application of
violence. It is a new interpretation of the concept of airpower. In places like
Libya, America embraced the almost benign-sounding concept of a “no-fly zone”
to bomb and shoot the crap out of a national army fighting rebels. It developed
the concept over the decade after the first Gulf War where it enforced a no-fly
zone that was actually an active program of attacking any Iraqi installation or
suppressing any movement it wanted while an embargo continued to inflict
terrible suffering on the children of Iraq. Another version of the concept was
used in the invasion of Afghanistan. The United States bombed the country with
everything it had, including B-52s doing carpet-bombing, while most of the
fighting done on the ground was done by other Afghans, the tribes of the
Northern Alliance serving as American stand-ins.
The new
approach has several advantages. It sends fewer coffins back home so that
political opposition to the killing abroad never grows as it did in the Vietnam
holocaust. It’s likely cheaper, too, than sending in and supplying large numbers
of troops. After all, I read somewhere that just the air-conditioning bill for
American troops in Iraq ran into many billions of dollars. And it maintains a
kind of polite charade about not really invading a place.
Over the
same period, another form of airpower came into its own, drones used as
platforms for Hellfire missiles targeted by remote control. The Israelis,
always leaders in the work and technology of murder, used a version of this
method in what they blithely call “targeted killings,” a long series of acts
known to most of the world by the terms “extrajudicial killing” or
“disappearing people” or “political assassination.” Al Capone might have called
it simply “rubbing guys out.” Well, whatever you choose to call it, the United
States is in the business in a serious way now, having murdered people in
Somalia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Yemen, and perhaps other places we don’t yet know
about. It has killed several thousand
this way, many of them innocent bystanders and all of them people charged with
no crime and given no due process.
Of course,
Israel’s long string of murders have achieved little beyond making still more
enemies and dragging in the gutter any claim it may once have had to ethical
reputation or worthy purpose. And just so with America’s valiant effort by
buzz-cut thugs sitting in crisply-pressed uniforms at computer screens playing
murderous computer games with real people in the explosions.
As for
diplomacy and reason and rule of law, these are practices almost forgotten by
America in the Middle East, as it mimics Israel’s reprehensible behavior
towards the people of the occupied territories and neighboring states. And all
democratic values have been laid aside or bulldozed over in Gaza, the West
Bank, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and other places as Israel’s special
interests are put before the democratic and human rights of many, many millions
of people.