A Neo-imperial Menace – The Great Game for the Middle East


19-Iraq-Saddam.w529.h352.2x

A comparative study of Syria & Iraq wars, makes it evident that the cause of instability is not authoritarianism, nor radicalism in either of these states, and the entire ME region.

Rather these are symptoms of a greater menace inciting them – neo-imperialism.

Enough with associative-thinking  – ‘this has to be true because of this.’

We don’t need Putin to be boogieman in order to vilify a US president.

Trump & the GOP that created him are war criminals, racists & rabid, hawkish interventionists.

With or without Putin.

Even Egypt’s case of the ‘Arab Spring’ was arguably a direct rejection of neo-imperial vision of a colonial-outpost in the Middle East.

Democracy may be the end-goal even in the Middle East – but democracy is impossible without sovereignty. Democracy has neither been achieved in Iraq or Syria. In one case, an authoritarian was overthrown, the other, preserved. Both cases resulted in utter chaos, unprecedented terrorism and religious radicalization. This implies the specter is foreign intervention, not domestic.

Sovereignty is a precondition for political development. One does not need to be a ‘political scientist’ or expert to understand that simple notion.

The cases of Bahrain, Yemen & Egypt serve as controls for other purported variables that may be influencing the outcome of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. Bahrain indicates that while Sunni-Shia hatreds are strong – they are not sufficient to incite a full-fledged civil war along sectarian lines. In Egypt, the political climate made it apparent that radicalism was exploiting any attempt at political development, contrary to the claim that reduced authoritarianism might mitigate religious fundamentalism. Finally, the case of Yemen indicates the double-standard exhibited by interventionists in the region – namely the US & Europe, who on one end funnel arms and finances to prop up dictators such as in Yemen; & in others devote the same efforts to toppling them.

Libya too, like Iraq, demonstrates the vulnerability of a nation without a state.

These are all indications that the primary menace to peace, stability and progress in the Middle East is foreign intervention, or neo-imperialism.

Ultimately, a truly democratic movement – the future of the Middle East, depends as much on internal efforts at deinstitutionalizing & wholly dismantling authoritarianism as it does on mitigating foreign support for these very institutions. Only then, can global hegemonies like Russia, America & China be kept at bay regarding any excessive ambitions in the Middle East and beyond (Latin America, Africa, Central & Southeast Asia).

Only through unity of indigenous cultures and nation-states can regions afflicted with imperialism overcome & develop. Dignity, prosperity, culture & innovation are best preserved under these conditions.

Advertisements

The Gravest Modern Security Threat to America & the World: Neoconservatism


GettyImages-568874623.jpg

The international political dynamic is shifting. Since 9/11 Islamic radicalism has filled the vacuum of power left by the dissolution of the USSR, prompting unprecedented US military and security engagement abroad. This article seeks to address what is likely to become the US greatest national security threat in the next ten years. The US has not witnessed aggressive state retaliation since Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. The most recent example of this was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Georgia. Furthermore, increased US entanglement in the Middle East has made it the target of terrorism. This instability in the Middle East has led to the migrant crisis, which challenges U.S. policy in many aspects. Furthermore technological advancements have propped up authoritarian regimes that also threaten international security, like North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. But these so-called threats appear to be short-term, since the 9/11 attacks, the most direct attack in US history, was a Saudi doing. Saudi Arabia is one of the US’ closest allies in the region of the Middle East, yet it exhibits brutal dictatorship, theocracy & immense human rights violations. The US’ double standards have made national security initiatives more elusive. So what really is the greatest threat to American security in the long run? The election of Obama I argue recommenced a US path towards dovish foreign policy, military disengagement, and reconciliation. Though there are exceptions like Libya, this created a window of opportunity for the US to distance itself from hawkish foreign policies that worsened the stability in regions like the Middle East, already suffering from authoritarianism, foreign occupation, poverty and religiosity.

The greatest threat comes in two forms: authoritarian government repression fueling extremism and sponsoring terrorism; foreign interventionism fueling anti-Americanism, terrorism and state-retaliation or balancing. My overall argument is that both American democracy and global democracy are compromised by neoconservative politics and that the balance of power has been disrupted mainly by the US in the post-Soviet era. In other words, American foreign policy and the domestic policies that exist within other states in volatile regions like the Middle East as well as the security threats in those respective states are inextricably linked. America has supported insurgents, authoritarians and rebels, all at the same time, reducing sovereignty while boosting presence and political gain. The problem is oversimplified by pointing to one or the other variable, when the reality is that stability is not possible without sovereignty, which is a precondition for political development, democratic or not. If we regard US policy in terms of long-term security threats, authoritarianism and terrorism are together products of neoconservative politics and interventionist US foreign policy. This interventionism is fairly new relative to a US tradition of isolationism, which preceded WWI and WWII. Notice that prior to the twentieth and twenty first century, American security threats were scarce, and mostly domestic. While economic and technological development are both responsible for globalization, it is still important to note that US interventionism is largely a twentieth and twenty first century phenomenon. For this reason, there was less conflict between the US and the Muslim world. Radicalization, underdevelopment and instability can be seen as a result of US interventionism. In turn this has created a serious national security threat for the US.

The emergence of ISIS, al Nusra and other radical Islamist splinter groups, in the post-Arab Spring Middle East highlights the importance of US foreign policy in achieving national security. ISIS is made up largely of foreign fighters, the majority of whom come from Iraq. It can thus be argued that ISIS is the product of a spillover from the War in Iraq launched by the US in 2003, at the dismay of most of the Arab world. The impetus of al Qaeda, the pre-ISIS “menace of the Middle East” was the end of US presence in the “holy land”, despite taking a lending hand from the US against the USSR in the 80s. Hezbollah, a notorious Lebanon paramilitary political party has used violence as a means of “resisting foreign occupation” and protecting Lebanese sovereignty. All these examples demonstrate how US interventionism in the region has manufactured its national security threat—private interests are compromising public interests in both the domestic and foreign spheres of American politics. This has little to do with democracy itself, and more to do with the US’ recent trend towards right-wing authoritarianism, particularly in its foreign policy, but evidently also in domestic politics.

But American interventionism in the Middle East, the crux of the Muslim World, began only after the Suez Crisis in 1952. Western involvement existed before, in European form. When the US became the major arbiter its sympathized with movements for Arab nationalism and sovereignty, only to give in to British paranoia of a “communist take over of the Middle East”. Since then, the US has played the fickle role of police and criminal in the Middle East; the cop and the robber.

It would be easy to point at Daesh or ISIS as the main threat to national security. Al Qaeda was the earlier menace. There always is a scapegoat, but these usually perpetuate a politically beneficial narrative. But the reality is rather different, with ISIS being a much greater threat to the Middle East’s population than any other really. It would be equally simplistic to point at Iran, or North Korea. But history shows that the greater threat lies in interventionism, instead of allowing the natural course of development to take place.

In the case of North Korea, it would be foolish to utilize nukes because this destabilizes the entire region and puts countries like Russia at risk. Russia has warned North Korea therein. The same logic could be applied to the Iranian Nuclear Threat, which has been mitigated by the deal reached with the Obama Administration. The so-called threat is almost an illusion, similarly to the WMDs in Iraq. This does not dismiss the lunacy and brutality of Saddam or Kim Jong Un—rather it underscores it while revealing Western complicity in perpetuating the cycle in its favor. This comes at the expense of the American public, while the minority elite benefits in the short term.

The greatest threat to American national security in the course of the next ten years is simplistically understood as radical Islamist terror. Perhaps next in line would be growing expansionism in the Far East, exhibited mainly by Russia and China. But as explained in the previous sections, these actions are largely natural, and responsive to US assertiveness in other spheres of influence. If this connection can be better understood by US leaders, the distinction between cause and effects will be more lucid, and national security can be reduced through cooperative international efforts at preventing violations of sovereignty.

WMDs, The War on Terror & Unicorns: What Deludes Us?


heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq.jpg

The risk posed by nuclear weapons is valid. But does this threat increase with the use of terrorism?

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, but new technological innovations have changed the way it is conducted [Chaliand & Blin 2007]. Furthermore, terrorism is currently used to describe attacks on civilians, usually by non-state actors whereas historically it was used more to describe state-terror . This could imply that terror was more commonly practiced by states in the past. Perhaps the reason for this is the emergence of government by the people, in the form of democracy, therefore changing the relationship between civilian and state. Has democracy made civilians more vulnerable targets of warfare?

This leads to the main question being addressed – should politicians be concerned about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The answer would be yes in a logical sense. American politicians are however in an odd position given that the majority of nuclear weapons in today’s world are in the hands of its allies, some of whom, like Pakistan and Israel for example, reside in the most volatile regions in the world. What would happen if this instability led to nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists?

But US policy in the regions where such a scenario is possible is arguably counterproductive in this regard. The US strategy consists of military initiatives and interventionism. For this reason, weaponry and ideology have trickled down from the US’ closest allies to fanatical groups.

Perhaps a more policy oriented approach is necessary. While President Obama has not necessarily avoided military deployment – comparatively, he has shown reluctance [Indyk et al 2012].

This approach is arguably more effective. The fear of the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorism wouldn’t really exist had it not been for bad US foreign policy, but more importantly, the threat itself doesn’t exist anymore than any other threat. Tackling it should be about preventing its likelihood in the long-run. This means reconsidering policies and allies in regions like the Middle East, and South Asia [Obama 2007].

 

Chaliand, Gérard, and Arnaud Blin. The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda. Univ of California Press, 2007.

Indyk, Martin S., Kenneth G. Lieberthal, and Michael E. O’Hanlon. “Scoring Obama’s Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 91.3 (2012): 29-43.

Obama, Barack. “Renewing american leadership.” Foreign Affairs 86.4 (2007): 2-16.

Book Review – Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics & The Great Games by Eric Walberg


51xwaajmMPL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg51xwaajmMPL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Walberg, Eric. Postmodern imperialism: geopolitics and the great games. SCB Distributors, 2011.

Recent history has introduced a period of heightened military conflicts, uprisings and contentions. This has resulted in many shifts in global patterns. Competitiveness between empires has intensified and further complicated the quest for understanding the global political dynamic. In his book, Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics & the Great Games, author Eric Wahlberg seeks to clear the air. The author’s main premise is to illustrate the shift from a bi-polar global dynamic, once dominated by the US on one end and the Soviet Union on the other, to a unipolar world, where the US is largely uncontested in its position as the global hegemony. Proxy wars, insurgent movements and radical militants have filled this void, which, as the author argues, has pinned the US and its main ally against anti colonial movements, Israel, against a loosely defined cooperative of movements and states, as well as a ambiguous enemy – the terrorist.

The author presents a historical backdrop from which he draws his assertions. This stretches from the earliest expression of the Great Games to their modern manifestations, as the Wars on Terror, and the neoconservative crusade for democracy. The consequence is increased exploitation of resources and the rise of untraceable insurgent networks that target their national governments as much as western societies. The double-dealings and inconsistencies of the West are evident here, which taints the reputation of western civilization. This is underscored by the author’s sympathies with the anti-capitalistic Soviet philosophical foundation.

The book is divided into five segments, organized chronologically, in which the author elaborates on the historical backdrop of the Great Game dynamic which has led to the current landscape. Wahlberg begins with the 19th century onset of the great games as played out between the British and Russian empires, followed by the communist revolution, WWII, the Cold War and the post 9/11 era. The author focuses on the British tactic of pinning forces against each other, a strategy which has been arguably adopted by the US in modern times, evidenced by its double-dealings with authoritarians and the radical insurgent movements threatening to depose them.

The three major sections in the book are categorized as GG I, II and III. GG stands for Great Games, and each numeric represents a period in time, in respective chronological order, beginning with the games as they panned out in the early 19th century, onto the WWII period, and finally, to GGIII, the post-cold war era. GGI refers to imperialism that took place during the nineteenth century until WWII. GGII covers the Cold War in which the two global superpowers, the USA and the USSR, competed for global influence.  GGIII is focused on the post-Cold War era beginning in 1989 to the present. Imperialism cannot be discussed without dissecting the role of the British Empire, a main focus of the author throughout the book. The British assumed hegemonic power by constructing a global economic network which would serve the interests of the core to the misfortune of the periphery, and where diplomacy failed, the use of military power was utilized.  The key focus of the book is the Middle East and Central Asia, “the heart of Eurasia”. It has been argued that the Eurasian heartland is a key geographic location; in other words, he who that controls the heartland controls the world.

The author suggests that in modern times, Islamic movements have replaced communism as the new anti-imperial force. The two primary agents of imperialism, argues Wahlberg, is an alliance between the US and Israel. The war on Iraq, and subsequent interventions in Libya and Egypt, are expressions of this new imperialism, and perhaps fall right into the hands of the main players in the global Great Games. The author suggests increasing tensions and growing insurgencies as a direct result of a stubborn imperial alliance between the US & Israel. Rising tensions in the Middle East and the growth of radical Islam in Central Asia are indicators of this reality. The US’ inconsistent foreign policy will only further retaliatory measures. The players of the great game must decide once and for all what is of greater priority; playing a fair game, or winning.

Thoughts on Democratic Debates


We need more minority representation. The democrats were looking like the Whigs from the UK. I wonder what percentage of financially struggling Americans are non-white. How would this make democrats look? Where are our multi-ethnic representatives? We need leaders who understand and connect with struggling Americans not privileged white girls in gentrified Williamsburg. I still prefer democrats because they don’t use hateful rhetoric and are more professional – republicans are nouveau riche, and are literally uneducated in the fields of economics and policy. Hillary Clinton sounds like a corporate pawn and a closet republican. Sanders is a populist-fanatic who tweets jigglypuff policies on the regular – seemingly disconnected from political reality especially abroad. Sanders is naive. Clinton is a tool. We need another Obama. Sure, the man isn’t perfect, but he’s done enough to prove he isn’t in the pockets of corporate America entirely; especially in his handling of foreign policy. We need more candidates to rise from different backgrounds. This is what the Democratic Party is all about. A diverse America of equal opportunity; not this Disneyland fairytale of a veil used by democrats and republicans alike to hide the political realities ailing America; racism, xenophobia, prison and military complex, and institutionalized disenfranchisement – to name just a few.

Should I even other mentioning the other guys (contenders)? What were their names again?

Sorry to be harsh – this is politics.

Bernie Sanders, Israel & Palestine


I know the dude is doing his best to speak on almost all issues of popular will, would be admirable to see him challenge US foreign policy on Middle East, especially Palestinian human rights. I think that would help bridge the gap between minority groups and non-minorities on the left, that is, a shift in American foreign policy.

But still, there remains no mention of Palestinian human rights of self-determination. And we all know this issue is the crux of the ME political dynamic; as well as the primary cause of mistrust between the ME & the West. I still think Bernie’s agenda is incredible, but as an immigrant from the ME, I can’t help but see the interdependence between US domestic policy and our actions in the ME.

I’m not sure Hillary is a proponent of boots on the ground as much as the GOP. Nonetheless, my ideal stance would be to use our “exceptional” diplomatic leverage to pressure Israeli policy against suppression of Palestinian self-determination. Let the world discover how “democratic” Israel really is. But is that in U.S. imperial interests? Which is why is irks me when someone like Sanders defends Israel, a socio-economically exploitative entity; something he swears to defend against.

He addresses it here; goes far enough to assert Palestinian rights and need for Two-States. Does he acknowledge the possibility that Israeli expansionism is never-ending; that perhaps Israeli survival depends on it? Is he merely scapegoating so as to appease both Palestinians and Israelis without actually addressing the issue at hand? Or does Sanders actually believe that a two-state solution is possible? All questions that matter, because, in today’s world, as the West confronts “Islamism”, the roots of it lay at the trunk of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

On a light note, here’s a snippet from Larry Wilmore’s Nightly Show featuring Mac Miller that captures the horrors of American electoral politics and the underlying conservative racism which is largely influential in the US political scene:

2016: Clinton, Bush & Paul


  

Republicans will do whatever they can to prevent Hillarys election. 

I believe it is inevitable. The same sentiment I carried during my support for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

God willing it will be a landslide victory and yet another milestone in our march towards progressive politics.

Jeb Bush is probably the only serious contender the GOP has to offer and it isn’t because his credentials but rather by the very nature of the Repuvlican-Conservative tradition of dynastic inheritances as well as the demand for a white Protestant male prototype.

Obama shattered that. What came with it is a burgeoning reality; racism, classicism and patriarchism are alive and well.

My only discord with Clinton is her lapdog mentality for Israel but like Obama’s strategy of short term appeasement, I believe the principles of the Democratic Party and democracy altogether will outweigh the importance of a continued alliance with apartheid state, Israel.

If any entity is going to deliver the U.S. from being held hostage to foreign special interest groups like AIPAC and the Arab-Gulf Lobby, it is not the Republican Party. The GOP is bought. It is essentially an interest group surviving off ideological propaganda and oligarchy.

Rand Paul, a favorite amongst youth and individual rights advocates falls into the same bracket as any republican to me. Having the balls to say outrageous statements about education and privatization in the U.S. is, contrary to libertarian sensationalist and sympathizes, not courageous. What would be courageous wild be for the likes of Rand Paul, the supposed philosophical genius of individual rights, to champion the right of Palestinian self-determination instead of lauding Netanyahu’s approach as his own.

Let’s see what type of America 2016 will usher in.

At this point, I would personally and ideally vote for a true democrat. Joe Biden and Hillary are much the same. They are centrists, echoing the sentiments of blue-dog democrats.

We need a robust, ethnically diverse, immigrant-background, progressive democratic candidate unafraid of challenging the foundations American society which have perpetuated inequality long enough.

Is democracy meant to perpetuate capitalism?

Because the majority system mixed with the electoral system guarantee that a secure, familiar ideology will administer America.

Two ideologies can be diametrically opposed – and both can still be equally wrong: Nazism, Zionism, Communism, Capitalism.

I pray that democracy and mixed economics triumph over the dogma of oligarchic exclusivity and ideological superiority, but often times it seems democracy works against the wishes of justice. The collective and individualistic dogmas have been institutionalized. 

Capitalism and communism must be undermined. 

My philosophy is socialist-libertarianism, essentially a blend of spirituality, collectivism and individualism, with proper balance and self-determination. Another simpler term is mixed economics.

I personally believe the democrats since clinton, especially during Obama’s presidency, and if Hillary gets elexted, we will witness a continuing subtle revolution within the American domestic and foreign political atmospheres.

Through reconciliation efforts abroad with left leaning nations that were traditionally scowered by the West, such as Cuba and Iran initiatives led by Obama, as well as changing rhetoric towards Israel, finally added with a demand for the recognition of minority disenfranchisement in the U.S., progress in the American society will be more possible.