President Barack Obama's recent speech (1) on ending,
or winding down, or cutting back on, or doing something to/with the "War
on Terror" that the U.S. has supposedly been engaged in since the events
of 9/11 has received a great deal of attention (2). Indeed the United States
has been engaged in what can be described as "Permanent War" since
the Bush/Cheney invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq. To
begin to answer the above question one can begin with an analysis of Iraq in
particular (3).
First of all, one should note (and I must say that I
have on a number of occasions) that, according to one retired Army General, to
call a military action a "War on Terror" is akin to calling another
action a "War on Flanking Manoeuvres." "Terror," however you
want to define it, is a tactic used by an enemy. It is not itself the/an enemy.
Second of all, in my cited column I noted that sometime after the Iraq invasion
it started to become clear that the primary objective was not at the beginning
what many of us on the Left thought it was: "oil and bases." It was
rather to create an on-going war itself. In summary, at the time I observed
that the CheneyBush War Policy was becoming curiouser and curiouser.
"Things are getting better in Iraq," they said, when they were
clearly getting worse. "We must fight on to 'victory' " they said,
without ever defining what they mean by "victory." And "we must
fight on to 'victory' " when virtually every other military and political
authority on the matter said that no matter how you would define it,
"victory" was impossible.
And then, one could connect the dots: 1. As is very
well known, Bush/Cheney lied the U.S. into war. 2. There was no post-war
planning, as is also well known. The U.S. State Department had a plan, and all
2,200 pages of it were just ignored. 3. The museums looting that could easily
have been prevented could have part of a plan (well a different kind of plan)
to develop permanent chaos. That would also explain the staffing of Paul
Bremer's pro-consulate by totally unqualified, very young, Republican political
operatives: not accidental or careless, but purposeful. Let's do whatever we
can to gum up the infrastructure even further than it is already gummed up by
Saddam and our invasion. 4. In late 2006, the report of The Iraq Study Group,
headed by no less than the man who coordinated the effort to steal the 2000
election for Bush, James Baker, had provided a perfect cover for withdrawal to
begin then. CheneyBush disposed of it before the ink was dry, and the famous/infamous
"Surge" was begun (4). 5. At various times, the major Muslim
countries offered to provide cover for an American departure, especially if it
were attached to a real settlement of the Palestine/Israel problem. They were
not taken up on those offers.
In the 2008 Presidential campaign, John McCain at one
time rattled on about "staying in Iraq for 50 years." Indeed, the US
eventually left Iraq, not with any kind of "victory" but because it
was pushed out, by the very puppet government that Bush/Cheney set up. That
left Afghanistan. At first Pres. Obama ramped up that war with his own
"surge." Eventually he announced a plan for "leaving," (not
too-well designed, but we do have to hope that when the major announced
draw-downs of US forces begin in 2014 he will not use the phrase "major
combat operations are over"). But then he does intervene, both literally
and figuratively "off-shore," in the Libyan revolt against Kaddafi.
The U.S. does have some major interests to pursue on that country. That, yet to
be explained at all, apparently led to the American Ambassador being in a very
unstable part of that country (but the part that sits over a large sweet oil
basin), lightly guarded, which then tragically led to his death.
Of course the Fox"News"Channel and the GOP
were absolutely thrilled with this outcome (not the deaths, of course) but with
how they seemed to have come about and the Administration's clumsy handling of
the story (most likely in an attempt to disguise the CIA's role in the whole
fiasco). This has given them the political gift that keeps on giving:
"Benghazi," of course. And then there is the whole drone monstrosity,
advertised as part of the "War on Terror." On the other hand, the
President is so far refusing, openly at least, to get involved in the Syrian
Civil War. Presumably this is because in his view, while Assad is
"bad," what might well come out of a "rebel" victory could
be even worse (and in that regard he is of course right).
Nevertheless, all of a sudden Pres. Obama announces
that he wants to start to wind down this "War on Terror," and cut
back on, if not totally eliminate, for example the "Drone War" (even
though, on another level, he will keep US imperialism going on unabated [5]).
There is strong "see-through-it" criticism of Obama coming from the
Left (6). But, clearly seeing the possibility that if Obama can somehow get
what he says he wants in this matter of ending the Permanent War, the
Republicans proceed to go off the deep end. John McCain, in a not only
unauthorized but totally unannounced move, goes to visit one faction of the
Syrian rebels and, contrary to current Administration policy, announces that
the US should get involved in actively supporting them. Then dear-old Lindsey
Graham, the same Lindsey Graham who led the impeachment battle against Pres.
Clinton when he was in the House of Representatives, announces that he wants to
go way beyond just that. He not only doesn't want to cut back on the "war
on Terror." He wants to expand it (7).
And so this is where we stand at the moment. In Part 2
of this series, I shall consider the question "Why?" Why are the
Republicans and some Democrats too so interested in maintaining the Permanent
War?
References :
1. New York Times, May 23, 2012, "Obama's Speech on Drone
Policy," text, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 .
2. See http://search.aol.com/aol/search?enabled_terms=&s_it=wscreen50-bb&q=Obama%27s+speech+on+the+war+on+terror for a sampling of responses/commentary.
3. Jonas,
S., " Dr. J's Commentary:
The CheneyBush War Policy: Connecting the Dots for Permanent War," BuzzFlash ,
02/27/2007.
5. Tomgram: Andrew Bacevich: The Eternal War? (http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175704/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_the_eternal_war/?utm_source=TomDispatch&utm_campaign=089e5ed31c-TD_Bacevich5_28_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1e41682ade-089e5ed31c-308812473#more)
6. Greenwald,
Glen, "Obama's terrorism speech: Seeing what you want to see," http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/obama-war-on-terror-speech
7. GOP's War On Terror 2.0: More Drones, More
Missiles, More Boots On Ground
