|
May 19, 2007
The pages of history are closing on those who waged war on Iraq---Bush, Blair and Howard--and then stood shoulder to shoulder with Republican America against Europe on Iraq. Blair has gone, wounded and despised, whilst Howard is looking at the writing on the wall. Bush is now a lame duck president and a political paralysis now grips the Bush administration in Washington.
Their rhetoric within the Republican FOX News framing--- about bringing democracy to Iraq and turning it into a model for the rest of the Arab world---trades on illusions given the on-the-ground realities: chronic instability, an incipient civil war, endemic violence and anarchy, an upsurge of terrorist activity of every kind, and a national insurgency to which the Anglo-American allies have no answer. Iraq in becoming a failed state, is the new heart of darkness. Even Riverbend, who wrote Baghdad Burning, is leaving Iraq, thereby joining 2 million of her compatriots.
Steve Bell
I appreciate that Blair talks about God being his judge over the Iraq war, and that Bush, as an imperial president, reckons God is by his side in his imperialist war to ensure US hegemony in the Middle East. What then are to make of the abject failure of Congress to perform its constitutional duty of oversight? Do we presume that the devil is on the side of those Americans who want to rebuild the constitutional system and subject the government once again to the discipline of checks and balances? Does God talk in terms of Republican FOX Newspeak and talking points?
No doubt history will pass a harsh judgment on Blair and Bush's intervention in Iraq. The United States military has made little secret of its view that the bloodshed in Iraq can now only be contained, rather than stamped out and that's the best call. Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfowitz are gone ; Kagan 's surge plan is failing, Gonzales, as Attorney General is facing no confidence moves, Karl Rove is under seige, President Bush 's polls are at their lowest levels ever, and the British have had enough. Only the Australian conservatives are left waving the flag for Commander Codpiece.
We should not forget that the US currently maintains 737 military bases (by official Pentagon count) in more than 130 foreign countries on every continent except Antarctica. Blair supported Bush's belligerent unilateralism toward other countries and he went along with the imperial presidency's contempt for international law. So did Howard. For both regional US hegemony in the US should not be challenged. It is deemed to be right. Both Blair and Howard sycophantic relationship with the hard neo-con power in Washington meant that they accepted the apocalyptic discourse of the “war of civilizations”, where in black and white terms they see the forces of Good (the West) confronting the forces of Evil (Islamic “terrorism”).
Unlike the Europeans, Blair and Howard have tacitly accepted the current US strategy to turn Afghanistan into a client state under a NATO flag from where US power projection into the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and South Asia and Central Asia would become possible. However, it does not look as if it is possible for US to accomplish its objective of creating a vibrant Afghanistan to consolidate its presence in Central Asia as a part of a traditional realpolitik strategy.
Will the US pursuit of a tactical annihilation of the Taliban came at the strategic cost of radically destabilizing Pakistan? Currently, the US's strategic position in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a defensive one---retaining a long-term strategic foothold as the Taliban, captures the odd town and approaches Kabul's city gates.
|
On the issue of Congressional oversight; seperation of powers is only as good as the party machines. This can probably be included as violence of faction, and hence detrimental to any republic.
I think a (constitutional) sortitionist group is the only way to counter this other than banning parties; which causes more problems than it solves.